' This is a revision petition filed against the order dated 3-1-1987 of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore wherein appeal of the respondents was accepted.
2. Briefly stated the facts relevant to the case are that Mst. Nawab Bibi transferred 62K-17M land in village Raiwind, Tehsil Lahore City in favour of petitioner through a registered gift deed No, 26204 dated 18-11-1984 and possession was also delivered. The petitioner submitted original gift deed to the field staff for entering mutation. Instead AC-II vide his order dated 21-3-1985 sanctioned inheritance Mutation No, 8834 wherein 1/4th share was given to Nawab Bibi and 3/4th share to respondents Nos.1 to 3 being residuaries of the last full owner, after declaring Mst. Nawab Bibi as limited owner. The petitioner went in appeal before the Collector who vide his order dated 5-5-1986 accepted the same. Thereafter, the respondents Nos.1 to 3 lodged an appeal before the Additional Commissioner who vide his impugned order, upheld the order of AC-II dated 21-3-1985. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Additional Commissioner has erred in law in holding Nawab Bibi a limited owner. On the promulgation of Muslim Personal Law Shariat Application Act, 1962 the limited estates were terminated in the year 1962. Thereafter, Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1975, came into existence by which the aggrieved persons were given a chance to file the suit against the limited estates within one year from the promulgation of the said Act. The respondents kept silent till 1984 without any plausible excuse. Thus, on the expiry of prescribed period Nawab Bibi became fall owner of that land. In his support learned counsel has laid stress on PLD 1987 Lah.
553. If the respondents have any grievance, they could move the Civil Court for redress.
4. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 to 3 has contended that as per pedigree- table Nawab Bibi widow of Muhammad Ali was shown" {{URDU TEXT}} List as such she was a limited owner. In support of his contention he has referred to PLD 1978 Lah. 483 in which it has been held that widow with qualification {{ URDU TEXT}} not convey anything other than limited heir (succession). According to section 2 of Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Doubts) Ordinance, 1972, Muslim females under the Customary Law shall be deemed to have been terminated with effect from 31-12-1962, so she cannot claim herself to be full owner. She being issueless was entitled to gift her 1/4th share from the property of her deceased husband.
5. I have considered the arguments and have also examined the record of the case. It has been laid down in section 3 of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1975 that any person aggrieved by an alienation or an order of succession with regard to any property allotted to a refugee female in lieu of the property abandoned by her in India or to which she was otherwise entitled as a limited owner under custom, and who could not challenge such alienation or succession, may call it in question in a Court or before any other authority within one year of the commencement of this Act. This enactment has been also interpreted by the Lahore High Court (PLD 1987 Lah. 553) and it held, if no application was made within one year of the enforcement of said Act, allottee became full owner and entitled to alienate the property. Since the respondents had failed to avail their rights at proper time and during the stipulated period, therefore, now they are debarred from claiming their share out of disputed property. In the circumstances of the case, the order of the Collector was legal whereas the Additional Commissioner had wrongly set it aside. I, therefore, accept the revision petition and set aside the impugned order dated 3-1-1987.