' This is a revision petition against the order dated 3-2-1973 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad whereby he held that the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad in the year 1961 treating Mst. Bherai (respondent) and Mst. Changi (petitioner) a sister of deceased Mst. Soni and directing that Photikhatabadal of her property should be mutated in their names in equal shares cannot be interfered with by the Extra Assistant Settlement Officer but can be modified by the Higher Court only.
2. The facts of the case are that on the death of Mst. Soni widow of Mir Khan Bahadur Ghulam Muhammad the Photikhatabadal- of -het property was effected by the Mukhtiarkar, Tando Bago exclusively in the name of Mst. Bherai in the record of Rights in the year 1957, showing her to be the only surving heir of Mst. Soni. Aggrieved by this order, Mst. Changi through her Attorney, Mir Khan Muhammad Talpur preferred an appeal contending that Mst. Bherai was not the real sister of Mst.
Soni, yet Khata was changed to her exclusion, she being the real sister of the deceased. The then Deputy Collector after hearing the parties rejected the appeal of Mst. Changi. Therefore, Mst.
Changi through her Attorney, preferred her revision petition before the Additional Commissioner, who under his order dated 12-6-1961 after hearing the parties and recording necessary evidence determined both Mst. Bherai and Mst. Changi as sisters of the deceased Mst. Soni and allowed them a share of 50 paisas each.
3. In 1969, the petitioner approached the authorities that some land had been entered in the name of Muhammad Rahim in the record of rights through mistake and that the record may be corrected and entered in her name. The Extra Assistant Settlement Officer held enquiry in the matter and referred the case to the Commissioner Hyderabad for orders inter alia on the point whether he was competent to peep into the order of the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad passed in 1961 and the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad vide the impugned order held that the Extra Assistant Settlement Officer could not go into the question.
4. The counsel for the petitioner urged the following points :-
(i) The Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, vide his order, dated 12-6-1961 held that Mst. Changi was real sister of deceased Soni and Mst. Bherai was her step-sister and allowed both of them equal shares. The parties belonged to Shia sect and accordingly the real sister will exclude the step-sister and the entire property was to be inherited by the petitioner to the exclusion of the respondent. Even according to Sunni law of inheritance, real sister was to get 5/6th and the step- sister 1/6th. The order of the Additional Commissioner, was therefore, wrong on the face of it.
(ii) The order dated 3-2-1972 of the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad was also not proper as the earlier order of the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, dated 12-6-1961 was wrong and he could set it aside.
(iii) The limitation would not run against him in view of the provisions of section 18 of the Limitation Act.
5. I have considered the case. The original order in the case has been passed by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad on 12-6-1961. His successor could not review it without the prior permission of the Board of Revenue vide proviso (a) (i) to section 163 (2) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. The order dated 3-2-1972 of the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, declining to interfere in the case is, therefore, proper. The petitioner has in his revision petition also challenged the order dated 12-6-1961 earlier passed by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad in the case. According to section 164 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, a revision petition could be filed within 90 days of the date of the order. The present petition has been filed after lapse of more than a period of 10 years. The petition is hopelessly time-barred. The petitioner is not able to justify this delay. The revision petition against that order is, therefore, time-barred.
6. In view of the above, the revision petition is dismissed.