I have heard the learned Advocate.
2. This is a revision petition against the order dated 21-7-1971 of the Additional Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division whereby he accepted the petitioner's appeal and remanded the case for fresh decision in respect of inheritance mutation No, 3330 in village Mianwali, Tehsil Phalia, District Gujrat.
3. The facts are that one Mirza, a land owner in this village, died and inheritance mutation No, 3330 was sanctioned by Assistant Collector II-Grade on 5-1-1970 under the Sunni Law. The respondents appealed to the Collector who, on 19-2-1971, accepted the appeal and declared the deceased a Shia and made the inheritance to devolve as such. The petitioner filed a second appeal before the Additional Commissioner who, by his order dated 21-7-1971, accepted the appeal partially and remanded the case back to the Collector for fresh decision and held that the evidence had not been properly scrutinized and the legal significance given to the evidence of the daughters and widow had no legal sanction behind it and that the other evidence was too meagre to come to an independent conclusion. Hence this revision.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Additional Commissioner has not applied his mind and remanded the case against the instructions of the Board of Revenue which require that the appellate Court should decide the case itself and the practice of unnecessarily remanding the cases to lower Courts should be discontinued. If the impugned order is allowed to stand the petitioners will have to take another round of litigation from which they should be saved. I agree with the petitioner that the appellate Courts should not remand the case unnecessarily. But in this case the evidence before Assistant Collector II-Grade did not support his finding that Mirza was a Sunni. The appellate Court also failed to notice that Assistant Collector II-Grade had disposed of the case without taking sufficient evidence and should have remanded the case on that ground, instead of coming to a finding that Mirza, was a Shia on the basis of evidence of the widow and daughters of the deceased without proper corroboration as they were themselves beneficiaries of their own statements. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the presumption is that a Muslim in this country is Sunni, unless the contrary is proved. This is correct. However, it is the duty of revenue authorities to take all available evidence, including disinterested evidence not produced by either party, and come to a definite finding on whether a deceased person was Sunni or Shia, when there is a dispute on the point. On such occasions a widow and daughters of the deceased may have interested in having the deceased declared as Shia, while male collaterals may have an exactly opposite interest in having him declared as Sunni.
In the condition prevailing in our village society, revenue authorities must, in such cases, take special interest to give a correct and just decision, after proper after enquiry, so that, on the one hand, the villagers feel that Government functionaries work with due diligence and efficiency and, on the other hand, no one of the disputing parties is allowed to take undue advantage of its position.
5. In view of the discussion set out above I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Additional Commissioner Member remanding the case to Extra Assistant Commissioner (Revenue)/ Collector, Gujrat, for fresh decision. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.