' Facts relevant to the decision of the controversy raised in the writ petition are that on the death of Murad holding Dakhilkari rights in the state owned land, measuring 219 Kanals 14 Merles, mutation of inheritance, was sanctioned in favour of Mst. Baigan, his widow on 25-6-1935. Mst. Baigan applied for permission, for transfer of the land held by her. District Collector accorded the necessary permission on 16-6-1974. In accordance with the permission obtained, Mst. Baigan donated the entire land to her daughter vide gift Mutation No.313, attested on 22-7-1974 by Assistant Collector Grade-II. Samman and others preferred an appeal against order, dated 16-6- 1974 to Commissioner, Sargodha Division. Appeal was dismissed on 6-8-1974. Further, revision was not filed against the aforesaid order.
2. An appeal, against gift mutation, dated 22-7-1974 was filed by Samman and others claiming to be collaterals of Murad deceased, in the Court of Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Jaranwala.
Appeal was allowed on 30-4-1975. The case was remanded for its decision afresh to the Assistant Collector Grade-II. Latter Officer was directed to enter a fresh mutation after holding detailed inquiry on the issue whether Mst. Baigan was a limited or a full owner. Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sargodha Division, in appeal directed against the order of Assistant Commissioner/Collector, found that section 3 of Act V of 1962 was inapplicable to the estate held by Muslim females under the provisions of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act of 1912.
In this view of the matter, Additional Commissioner (Revenue), accepted the appeal and reversed the order of Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Jaranwala who had, as stated above, remanded the case for holding an inquiry into the estate held by Mst. Baigan. Order, dated 20-6-1975 of Additional Commissioner, was assailed by Samman and others in revisional jurisdic tion before learned Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore in R.O.R. No. 1747 of 1974-75. Learned Member, dismissing the revision petition observed:- "The whole case of the petitioner is based on the plea that the land in dispute is proprietary land and that under the Muslim right of inheritance the petitioners had right to share it. The actual fact seems to be that this is a colony land and not a proprietary land and whatever changes have taken place, have taken place in the rights of tenancy and not in rights of ownership. The mutation which is being assailed by the petitioner was entered and sanctioned in pursuance of the decision in the case decided by the Commissioner. Unless that order is set aside by the competent Court, the Revenue Officer was bound to incorporate that order in the mutation. In view of this the plea of the petitioners cannot be accepted. Having no force, the revision petition is dismissed."
' Having not succeeded on the revenue side Samman and others, have invoked constitutional jurisdiction of this Court with prayer that the impugned orders passed by learned Additional Commissioner and learned Member, Board of Revenue in appeal and revision respectively be declared to have been passed without lawful authority. Petition, was admitted on 16-2-1980 and has come up today for hearing in presence of Mr. M.A.Zafar, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners and Malik Talib Hussain, Advocate, for respondents Nos.3 to 8. Learned counsel have been heard and with their assistance, the available material, has been examined.
3. It is admitted that Murad the last male holder of the property died on 14-3-1934. He was holding Dakhilkari rights in land subject-matter of the dispute between the parties. On his death his rights in the land, were mutated in the name of Mst. Baigan, his widow in the year 1935. While, these Dakhilkari rights were still recorded in her name, she approached Collector of the district seeking permission to transfer the land in favour of her daughter Mst. Thari. Permission was granted. In pursuance, she succeeded to make a gift of the entire land in favour of her daughter vide Mutation No.311, dated 12-7-1974.
' Appeal against the abovesaid mutation was accepted and the case remanded for decision afresh. Remand order was set aside by Additional Commissioner and Member, Board of Revenue.
Main ground that prevailed with Additional Commissioner and Member, Board of Revenue was that section 3 of Act V of 1962 terminating the rights of limited estate holders, was inapplicable to the rights, held by Mst. Baigan. In the result of acceptance of appeal by learned Additional Commissioner which order was maintained in revisional jurisdiction, gift mutation which had earlier been set aside stood restored. Learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that in view of the settled law, provisions of section 3 of Act V of 1962, stood attracted to the estate of Mst. Baigan w.e.f.
31-12-1962 the date of the enforcement of the aforesaid Act. He supported himself by reference to Munshi and others v. Barkat Ali and others 1969 SCMR 181, Muhammad alias Muhammad Ali v.
Raja and 7 others 1970 SCMR 246, Muhammad Yaqub v. Member, Board of Revenue, Lahore and 3 others PLD 1973 SC 304 and Mst. Baigan v. Mst. Bai 1983 SCMR 80, to contend that section 3 of Act V of 1962, was attracted to the estate of Mst. Baigan. Her estate, stood terminated w.e.f. 31-12-1962 and the permission under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, did not confer larger rights on her than the one she obtained under the Shariat Law made applicable to her.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents refusing the contentions advanced by counsel for the petitioners submitted that orders passed in course of mutation proceedings, cannot be interfered in constitutional jurisdiction for the sole reason that the decisions in such proceedings do not decide the rights of the parties finally. Petitioners, therefore, have a remedy available at law in filing a civil suit which in the circumstances of the case was not only adequate but appropriate also. He also contended that section 3, of Act V of 1962, had been rightly interpreted by learned Additional Commissioner and learned Member, Board of Revenue, by holding that the same was not applicable to the estate of Mst. Baigan. Gift in consequence was not open to question at the instance of the collaterals. He pressed the point that the petitioners, are not "aggrieved persons" and thus cannot, invoke constitutional jurisdiction of this Court to set at naught, orders competently passed by superior revenue authorities.
5.I have given anxious consideration, to the contentions raised. Learned counsel for the petitioners was on a very firm ground in stating that in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in 1983 SCMR 80, the point is no longer open to discussion. It has been authoritatively held that section 3 of Act V of 1962 applied to the estates held by females under the provisions of Punjab Act V of 1912 as amended upto date. Point raised is no longer res integra but is covered by the pronouncement of the highest Court in the realm. Orders passed by Additional Commissioner and learned Member, Board A of Revenue, holding otherwise cannot be allowed to stand in view of this explicit and clear statement of law binding on all Courts, Tribunals and Authorities in Pakistan.
In terms of Article 189 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, "any decision of the Supreme Court shall to the extent that it decides a question of law or is based upon or enunciates a principle of law be binding on all other Courts in Pakistan". Article 190 of the Constitution provides that all executive and judicial authorities throughout Pakistan shall act in the aid of the Supreme Court. From the reading of these Articles of the Constitution it is absolutely clear that the law declared by Supreme Court of Pakistan is binding on all Courts/Tribunals and Authorities in Pakistan. Therefore, the view that section 3 of Act V of 1962, terminating the estate held by females under provisions of Punjab Act V of 1912 was inapplicable, no longer holds the field. It is no doubt correct that the revenue authorities in mutation proceedings do not decide the rights of the parties.
It is also correct that any decision arrived at during the course of such proceedings was subject to a decision of the civil Court, which alone is competent to adjudicate upon the civil rights of the parties. But it is equally true that when the revenue authorities, proceeded to decide the controversy, contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, as is the case here, the matter cannot be left there leaving the parties to fight their legal battle in civil Court on a point already stands concluded by the highest Court in Pakistan. When I look at the matter from this angle, I feel it would be failing in duty to leave this patent error unredressed driving the parties to a lengthy process of litigation in civil Court for its settlement. Already, several years have been consumed and God knows how many more are needed to settle this controversy. It was with this object in view that I have decided to interfere and set right a mistake committed by learned Additional. Commissioner and learned Member, Board of Revenue. As observed in the preceding paragraphs, Revenue Officers, are equally bound to act in accordance with law governing and regulating E their jurisdiction. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the two orders, dated 20-6-1975 of Additional Commissioner, Revenue, and, dated 4-11-1979 of learned Member, Board of Revenue, cannot be allowed to stand. In the result, writ petition is allowed, impugned orders, dated 20-6-1975 and 4-11-1979 are set aside and declared to have been passed without lawful authority. Necessary corollary is that the order passed F by Collector, dated 16-6-1974 remanding the case to the Assistant Collector Grade-II, for decision afresh is restored. Consequently, while maintaining the remand order, the Revenue Officer, is directed to decide the mutation, in accordance with the pronouncement of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the aforenoted precedent case. Costs to be borne as incurred. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.