' Facts relevant to the disposal of the present writ petition briefly stated are that one Ghulam Muhammad son of Faiz-ud-Din, owner of some agricultural land situated in pre-partitioned India died prior to division of sub-continent. Claim for verification of land standing in the name of deceased was submitted by Sardar and Muhammad Younis his real nephews. Claim was verified in the name of Ghulam Muhammad deceased. Allotment of land in lieu of verified claim was also made in the name of Ghulam Muhammad deceased. Thereafter mutation of inheritance relating to his estate was sanctioned on 17th February, 1954 in the names of Sardar, Muhammad Younis half share and the remaining half was allocated to Mst. Inayat Begum widow of Rehmat Ali a real uncle of Ghulam Muhammad deceased. Application seeking review of the said mutation under the provisions of Land Revenue Act was made to the Assistant Collector first Grade (Revenue) who in due process made recommendations to the Collector of the District for review of inheritance Mutation No, 27 attested on 17th February, 1954. Permission was accorded and mutation was reviewed. As a result of review of mutation whole of the land standing in the name of Ghulam Muhammad was transferred in favour of Muhammad Younis and Sardar Muhammad his nephews to the exclusion of Mst. Inayat Begum. An appeal therefore, was filed by Mst. Inayat Begum assailing the correctness of inheritance mutation passed in review before Collector of the District.
Appeal was accepted on 13th August, 1959 and it was ordered that earlier mutation of inheritance sanctioned on 17th February, 1954 be restored. It is admitted on all hands that no further appeal or revision challenging the order, dated 13th August, 1959 passed by the Collector was preferred by Sardar and Muhammad Younis.
2. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner however, issued some new instructions covering the cases of inheritance in such like cases to be decided in accordance with Shariat Law.
Matter closed with the order, dated 13th August, 1959 was again reopened and consequently Mutation No, 866 relating to estate of Ghulam Muhammad deceased was again taken up for decision and sanctioned on 8th March, 1964 in favour of Muhammad Youuis and Sardar Muhammad petitioners to the exclusion of Mst. Inayat Begum. Appeal was preferred before District Collector by Mst. Inayat Begum on 21st May, 1964. Learned Collector vide order, dated 19th June, 1964 accepted appeal and set aside Mutation No, 866, dated 8th March, 1964 and restored the earlier order passed on Mutation No, 27, dated 17th February, 1954. Further appeal was filed by the present petitioners in the Court of Commissioner which did not succeed and was dismissed on 5th December, 1964. Revision also met the same fate and was dismissed on 13th June, 1967 by learned Member Board of Revenue.
3. Aggrieved, present petition has been filed in this Court praying for issuance of an appropriate writ to declare the orders passed by the Revenue Officers in appeal and revision (19th June, 1964, 5th December, 1964 and 13th June, 1967) relating to inheritance of Ghulam Muhammad deceased to have been passed without lawful authority on two following main grounds :-
(1) That inheritance mutation relating to the estate of right-holders could only be decided by the Rehabilitation Authorities/Settlement Authorities and as such the Revenue Officers acting under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act had no jurisdiction whatsoever. The orders passed on inheritance mutation on Revenue side therefore, suffered from total lack of inherent jurisdiction.
(2) Mst. Inayat Begum being widow of Rehmat Ali an uncle of Ghulam Muhammad was not entitled to succeed to any share of land left by Ghulam Muhammad either under Customary Law or Shariat. Revenue Officers acted without lawful authority in allocating a share to her.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As regards jurisdiction learned counsel has contended that in view of the law laid down by the High Court and Supreme Court of Pakistan and Instructions issued by the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner referred to above, Revenue Officers had no jurisdiction whatsoever to deal with inheritance case of Ghulam Muhammad deceased right-holder. Reliance has been placed upon the following case law, to contend that question relating to jurisdiction can be raised at any time, for it is conferred by statute and not by consent of parties.
(1) PLD 1967 SC 314.
(2) PLD 1947 P C 19.
(3) PLD 1976 SC'729.
(4) PLD 1959 SC 177.
(5) PLD 1962 (W. P.) Lah.
326.
(6) PLD 1964 SC 829.
(7) PLD 1972 SC 271.
(8) 1979 CLC 406.
(9) 1982 SC MR. 511. ' and he has also relied upon paras. 46 and 46-A of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Scheme to contend that widow of an uncle was not entitled to succeed at all, either under Custom or Islamic Law. Learned counsel for the respondent however has vehemently stressed that the petitioner by their own conduct have disentitled themselves to agitate the point of jurisdiction. He stated that the inheritance Mutation No, 27 in the first instance was decide on 17th February, 1954 in favour of present petitioners and respondent Mst. Inayat Begum half and hanif. Thereafter all the proceedings according to the learned counsel for the respondent have been conducted on the revenue side. The matter was set at rest by District Collector on 13th August, 1959, by which appeal filed by Mst. Inayat Begum was accepted and earlier order, dated 17th February, 1954 was restored.
Thereafter the petitioners relying on Instructions issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner approached Assistant Collector 1st Grade to review inheritance Mutation No, 27, dated 27th February, 1954. Obviously Assistant Collector 1st Grade was exercising powers under provisions of the Land Revenue Act. Mutation when reviewed under sanction of District Collector was again challenged in appeal by Mst. Inayat Begum before Collector of the District under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act. Appeal and revision were also filed and decided by the Revenue Officers obviously under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act. Learned counsel for respondent has contended that the petitioners themselves have invoked the jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities acting under the provisions of Land Revenue Act and having failed therein finally are not permitted to take sudden turn to assail the ultimate order passed against them. It has been emphasized by learned counsel for the respondent that at no stage of the proceedings starting from the year 1954 to a final order made in the year 1967 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue on 13th June, 1967 petitioners ever questioned the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities to sanction inheritance mutation of the deceased right-holder. In view of this evident continuous/persistent conduct of the petitioners learned counsel has contended that after having lost their case before the Revenue Authorities they are not permitted to the turn now to seek redress solely on the question of lack of jurisdiction. Learned counsel has further stated that even the basic order, dated 17th February, 1954 was not passed by the Revenue Officer but in fact was made by A. C. R. As is evident from the certified copy placed on file. Here it may be noted that certified copy filed by the petitioners with writ petition showed that the said order had been passed by Assistant Collector second grade whereas the other copy indicates that the order was passed by A. R. C. In view of these two certified copies of the same order placed on file it is difficult to determine with precision as to in which capacity the officer made the order. Both the parties are at serious dispute about the exact capacity of the Officer who sanctioned the basic mutation. However it is admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that only the Rehabilitation Authorities could have sanctioned the mutation of inheritance. He has submitted on these premises that mutation had been correctly sanctioned by the A. R. C. In the first instance.
5. As regards entitlement of Mst. Inayat Begum learned counsel for petitioners had contended that the widow of Rehmat Ali uncle of the deceased was not entitled to any share of inheritance. But the parties are in dispute as to the applicability of Custom or Shariat Law to the case of inheritance of Ghulam Muhammad deceased. Reliance has been placed on paragraphs 46 and 46-A of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme by the petitioners to show that estate of Ghulam Muhammad was to be distributed in accordance with Shariat Law and not custom and under that system of law, Inayat Begum did not qualify to get any share from the estate of Ohulam Muhammad deceased.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that apart from question of jurisdiction, which the petitioners never questioned, Mst. Inayat Begum was rightly granted a share in the estate left by Ghulam Muhammad deceased, as under both systems of dispensation she was entitled to succeed. In the first instance learned counsel for respondents Inayat Begum, has submitted that she was entitled to succeed as representative of her husband under custom which held the field when Ghulam Muhammad died. Strictly in the alternative it was submitted that Sardar Muhammad petitioner in his statement copy R-2 has admitted that Rehmat All husband of Mst. Inayat Begum real uncle of the deceased was alive at the time of the death of Ghulam Muhammad. Proceeding on these premises learned counsel contended that even if Shariat Law were to apply, Mst. Inayat Begum being widow of Rehmat Ali, who was alive at the time of death of Ghulam Muhammad was entitled to succeed. It has also been contended that these questions cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction for their decision depends upon factual inquiry. This is only possible in a civil Court on a properly instituted civil suit by the parties. Proceedings in mutation are summary in nature and do not decide the question of title. Any decision recorded by a Revenue Officer in mutation- proceedings does not amount to a decision on a question of title. Decisions made in mutation proceedings are subject to a final determination by the civil Court. Reliance was placed upon PLD 1970 Lah. 614, PLD 1973 Lah. 495 and PLD 1975 Lah. 81 to show that the decisions made by Revenue Officers in mutations cannot be successfully challenged in writ jurisdiction, as the person against whom the order had been made cannot be considered to be an aggrieved persons.
7. Parties have been litigating on the subject of inheritance relating to the estate of deceased Ghulam Muhammad since 1954. In the first instance mutation of inheritance was decided in favour of petitioners and Mst. Inayat Begum in equal shares. The order passed on Mutation No, 27 held the field except for a temporary period through Mutation No, 866 of 8th March, 1964, which, too was subsequently set aside and earlier order, dated 17th February, 1954 was restored. Mutation proceedings as observed above are summary in nature and do not decide the rights of the parties for which the aggrieved person can approach the civil Court. As regards the question of jurisdiction suffice it to say that the petitioner never questioned the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities to sanction mutation of inheritance. In fact they themselves invoked and submitte to jurisdiction of Revenue Officers. In view of their conduct they cannot B be allowed to raise the question of jurisdiction, after having lost battle on the revenue side. Copy of original Mutation No, 27, dated 17t February, 1954 placed on file by learned counsel for the respondents shows that the mutation was sanctioned by A. R. C. Whether or not Mst. Inayat Begum could succeed to the estate of Ghulam Muhammad and what system of law was applicable to determine her entitlement is a question, which cannot appropriately be decided within limited C scope of the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. This requires pleadings and evidence in support thereof and can be more properly deal with by civil Court.
8. In view of the above-stated position of facts and law petitioners have still another remedy available under law in civil Court to seek redress of their grievance. No case for interference in Constitutional' jurisdiction has therefore been made out. Writ petition therefore fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.