MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE, J.-The dispute in this settlement revision relates to property left by Jhanda, deceased. Mst. Mukhtaran, petitioner, is his real sister while Fazal Ahmad petitioner, is his real paternal uncle's son. Mst. Noor Begum, respondent, is the widow of said Jhanda. It is alleged that he died in 1947 while migrating to Pakistan. His widow, Mst. Noor Begum alone filed Claim Form under the Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act, 19 49, for the land abandoned by her husband. Land measuring 18 kanals and 12 marlas was verified on the said Claim Form and in lieu thereof, she was allotted 57 kanals 8 marlas of land in Chak No. 421/fi. B., Tehsil Pakpattan, district Sahiwal. On 28-2-1953 the mutation of inheritance of Jhanda deceased was sanctioned in favour of his widow, -41st. Noor Begum, respondent. Although the present petitioners reside in the same Chak yet they kept quiet about the matter till 10-12-1964 when they challenged the inheritance mutation in appeal before the Deputy Rehabilitation Com--missioner (Land), who tide order dated 24-6-1965 dismissed the same on the ground of limitation. It may be pointed out that the learned Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land) hold that the present petitioners were aware of the mutation, but did not challenge the same within the prescribed period. Instead of exhausting further remedies by way of revision before the higher authorities, the petitioners op 5-8-1965 submitted an application under section 10 of the Land Settlement Act, 1958 alleging that Mst. Noor Begum, respondent, got the mutation in bar favour through fraud, without the knowledge of the petitioners The Deputy Commissioner, Sahiwal, acting as Addl. Settlement Commissioner (Land) and being the delegatee of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, dismissed this application on 15- 12-1965, on the ground that the case was not covered by the provisions of section 10 of the Act.
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioners moved the present settlement revision before this Court.
2. The main question which arises for consideration in the present settlement revision is whether the case is covered by section 10 of the Land Settlement Act, 1958 or not. As pointed out earlier, the petitioners challenged the attestation of the mutation in appeal but the same was dismissed being hopelessly barred by limitation. They did not pursue their remedies further by way of revision etc. The result is obvious that those orders attained finality against them. The conduct of the petitioners is also worth noting. Instead of fighting for their own rights and then ultimately coming before this Court under the writ jurisdiction, they adopted a different course to attack the rights of their opponent. They submitted an application under section 10 of the Land Settlement Act, 1958 alleging that Mst. Noor Beg, respondent, got the mutation attested in her name fraudulently. It clearly means that the subject-matter under section 10 of the Act remains the same, namely the validity of mutation of inheritance attested in favour of Mst. Noor Begum. In these circumstances, are the petitioners legally justified to invoice the provisions of section 10 of the Act? Perusal of the Land Settlement Act, 1958 shows that Sections 10 and 11 are special provisions conferring special jurisdiction upon the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Chapter VI of the said Act deals with ordinary appeals, revisions and reviews. Under this Chapter, the Chief Settlement Commissioner enjoys ordinary powers of appeal and revision etc. Thus before the Amending Ordinance XII of 1964, in the ordinary routine, any dispute under the Act could come before the Chief settlement Commissioner.
The jurisdiction under section 10 is absolutely independent from and in addition to the jurisdiction under Chapter VI. The object of conferring this special and extraordinary power upon the Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 10 is also obvious, i.e., to safeguard the interest of the Department, The provisions of section 10 are to deal with the special situation in special circumstances. This power has given only to the highest authority in the Settlement Organization. It can, therefore, lie legitimately inferred that any special category of cases is to be dealt with under this section and there even a party need not be "aggrieved". This jurisdiction under section 10 can be exercised by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on information received from any source. It was for this reason that in the beginning the persons who moved the Chief Settlement Commissioner under this section were mostly informants. An aggrieved party has a statutory right under Chapter VI to get its rights adjudicated, but such is not available under section 10. The intention of the legislature, in these circumstances, appears to be clear that so far as the regular litigation between the parties is concerned, they would be governed by Chapter VI, where only an aggrieved person or party is given the right of appeal etc. And that too, within prescribed period of limitation. On the other hand, jurisdiction under section 10 can be invoked by anyone at any tine.
The main interested party under section 10 is the Settle--ment Department, which under Chapter VI, is the least affected party. It is also clear that the petitioners cannot get the desired relief under section 10, because the power of the Chief settlement Commissioner under this section is confined either cancel allotment or reduce the area, but he cannot determine the question of inheritance between rival parties. The provisions of section 10 are penal in nature. The scope of inquiry under section 10 is 8 limited one and confined to only "allotments" obtained by means of "fraud" and "false representation" whereas the scope of appeal and revision etc., under Chapter V, is much wider and the Settlement Authority is required to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties. Thus if the dispute is between certain parties regarding their rights, they are governed by Chapter VI and not by section 10. Their rights are adequately protected under that Chapter and after exhausting the remedies, the aggrieved party can approach this Court by filing a writ petition.
3. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the dispute is of inheritance alone. It is to be seen whether such a dispute can be agitated under section 10 between two rival parties. A perusal of this section shows that if the Chief Settlement Commissioner is satisfied that an "allotment" has been obtained by any person by means of fraud or false representation, then he can pass an order cancelling the same or reducing the area. This section talks about allotment alone. The word, "allotment" has been defined under the Statute. The question now is whether the dispute regarding the inheritance between the parties in the present case can be legitimately said to be an allotment. Looking at the nature of section 10, it appears that the Chief Settlement Commissioner is concerned with the cases of allotment obtained through fraud or false representation only. The other cases, without fraud, are to be dealt with-in the ordinary manner by the Settlement Authorities under other provisions of the Statute. Inheritance is a dispute between two private parties where Settlement Department is not very much interested or affected. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no dispute so far as the entitlement of Jhanda is concerned. Similarly no fraud is alleged regarding allotment in favour of Mst. Noor Begum. The dispute as to who is entitled to the inheritance of Jhanda, deceased, is purely of private nature, in which private parties alone are concerned and when that is settled, the Settlement Authorities will give effect to the same. Section 10 is confined, to allotment alone and other matters like inheritance, are not covered by it, The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that even the dispute of inheritance will ultimately involve the question of allotment is too far-fetched, because the allotment will retrain intact, but only parties or their shares will be affected. It is nobody's case that the entitlement or the original allotment in favour of Mst. Noon Begum was obtained fraudulently. The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any element of fraud on the part of Mst. Noor Begum in obtaining the allotment of the land in dispute. In this view of the matter, it is clear that section 10 can be invoked only if the allotment has been obtained fraudulently or on false representation. This is not so in the present case. We, therefore, hold that so far as the dispute of inheritance between the parties in the present case is concerned, it is not covered by section 10.
4. It is also argued on behalf of the petitioners that Mst. Noor Begum, respondent, by not disclosing the names of petitioners at the time of the attestation of the mutation committed a fraud and that after the publication of West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, allotment should be deemed in favour of the petitioners as well. It has been held above that there is no element of fraud so far as the allotment of land in dispute is concerned. In the circumstances of the case, therefore, the said Act V of 1962 has no application and that Act is not relevant for the disposal of the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioners also tried to argue that Mst.
Noor Begum should be deemed only a limited owner. Mst. Noor Begum being widow got this land as full owner.
5. It was admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that during the pendency of the settlement revision, Mst. Noor Begum sold the entire property to some other persons, whose particulars he did not know. Those vendees are neither impleaded as party, nor otherwise have any notice of the present case. He, however, relying upon the principle of lis pendens contended that Mst. Noor Begum being vendor, her vendees will step into her shoes. He has ignored the principle of natural justice, which is available even to the vendees from the allottee. These vendees cannot be deprived of their valuable property without issuing any notice or affording adequate opportunity to them. The settlement revision can be dismissed on this short ground alone.
6. For the foregoing reasons, we find no substance in this settlement revision and dismiss the same with costs. 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.