HAFEEZULLAH ISHAQ Member,- Brief facts are that State land measuring 12 acres 3 kanals and 12 marlas comprising Khasras Nos. 24/22 - 23-24 and 25/1 to 12, 13, 26, 27 situated in Chak No. 54/EB, Tehsil Arifwala, District Sahiwal was allotted since 1.6.1948 in favour of Jamal Din S/o Jaman under Cooperative Farming Scheme. Under By-Law 8 of Cooperative Farming Society, he nominated his grandson Abdul Hameed S/o Muhammad as his successor. After the death of Jamal Din, his nominee Abdul Hameed was declared eligible to inherit the tenancy vide order dated 26.7.1966.
Suleman, brother of original allottee, appealed against this order and the case was remanded on 30.4.1968 by Addl: Commissioner (Revenue) Multan. Against AC/Collector vide order dated 11.2.1977 held Abdul Hameed nominee as eligible member of the Society and also nominee of Jamal Din.
The appeal filed by Suleman was rejected on 11.3.1970. After paying all dues Abdul Hameed nominee got deed of conveyance executed in his name on 31.1.1981 and he then alienated in favour of his wife, sons and daughter land measuring 80 kanals on 23.9.1990.
2. On 18.11.1984 the Board of Revenue vide Memo: No. 636-84/3089- CL-II, issued instructions that the inheritance cases of allottees under Cooperating Farming Societies be decided in accordance with Muslim Law and Muslim Personal Law (Shariat Application Act V of 1000 for cancellation of sale deed under Section 30(2) of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the principle law pronounced by the Superior Courts of the Country is that the estate of the deceased original tenant shall devolve upon the legal heirs in accordance with the Shariat Law, irrespective of the nomination by the deceased allottee even if the legal heirs are not the members of Cooperative Society. The inheritance of Jamal Din deceased was not decided in accordance with law and the issuance of the sale deed in favour of petitioner was an illegal act, void ab-initio. The inheritance of Jamal Din deceased opened on the date of his death i.e. 8.1.1966 when Section 19-A of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act was in the field. All questions regarding inheritance have been settled by the Supreme Court of Pakistan's judgement reported in the PLD 1990 SC/1 and no question of limitation arises in this regard. The respondent Abdul Hameed could not get the proprietary rights even if he had deposited the price thereof (Zar Malkana), which would be paid by all the legal heirs proportionately. The learned counsel placed reliance on PLD 1974 S.C.185, 1990 SCMR 868 and PLD 1964 Lahore 224 and requested that the revision petition may be accepted.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents maintained in rebuttal that Jamal Din had died as far back as 1966. The Collector vide his order dated 26.7.1966 declared Abdul Hamid respondent No.(1), eligible to inherit the tenancy of land allotted to Jamal Din. The appeal filed by Suleman, the brother of Jamal Din before the Additional Commissioner, Multan, was remanded vide order dated 3.4.1968 for fresh decision. Thereafter the District Collector, Sahiwal sought advice of the Commissioner, Multan Division through his reference dated 30.5.1969 which was replied by the Commissioner vide his memo No. GB-6- 1316/69, dated 3.10.1969 and whereafter respondent No. 1 was declared eligible to get the land vide Colony Assistant, Pakpattan's order dated 11.2.1970.
Suleman's appeal in the court of Commissioner, Multan Division, was dismissed vide order dated 11.3.1970. No legal steps have been taken by the petitioners against Abdul Hameed respondent No.1 after the rejection of the aforesaid appeal. Abdul Hameed got conveyance deed on 2.1.1981.
Muhammad petitioner and other petitioners did not agitate against the nomination made by Jamal Din nor they filed any appeal or revision against his nomination or the order by which Abdul Hameed was declared eligible to acquire proprietary rights. The petitioners also kept quiet during the proceedings initiated by Suleman. Muhammad petitioner No. 1 also acquired proprietary rights in respect of land which was allotted to him under the Cooperative Farming Scheme which he has now alienated amongst his heirs excluding Abdul Hameed respondent No.(1). The present litigation is in fact due to family friction. The Board of Revenue can exercise its powers under Section 30(2) of the Act ibid, if it is proved that fraud or mis-representation has been committed by the persons acquiring tenancy rights. The law never helps those persons who in the first instance keep quiet for their own benefit and for certain motives move application later. There is no fraud or mis- representation. The only allegation which is made out against the petitioner is that when Jamal Din the original allottee died, the property should have been devolved upon the legal heirs. The case was processed judicially through several tiers and the judicial process cannot be termed as fraud or misrepresentation. Muhammad petitioner No. 1 kept quiet for 24 years and the nomination of respondent No.1 was done with his consent. Similarly Suleman petitioner also filed a civil suit the fate of which is not known. The present petitioners never bothered to move any authority under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act and therefore the matter has become past and closed transaction. The learned counsel relied up PLD 1987 SC 107, PLD 1980 Peshawar 21 and PLD 1985 Rev. 19 and Law Notes 1980 SC 1034 in support of his contention.
5. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record carefully. The petitioners' case is that the matter relates to inheritance under the Muslim Law and should be decided as such.
However, the present application has been moved before the Board of Revenue under Section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Land (Punjab) Act for cancellation of conveyance deed.
The grounds taken in the aforesaid application vide paras 5 and 6 thereof allege that respondent No. 1 is a very claver and cunning ( ) person and he in collusion and in connivance with Revenue and Cooperative authorities fraudulently got allotted the land in his name and obtained conveyance deed on 2.2.1981. Under the Shariat Law the conveyance deed should be issued in favour of the petitioners and respondent No.6 It appears advisable to reproduce section 30(2) of the Act ibid:- "30(2). If, at any time, the Board of Revenue is satisfied that any person had acquired under this Act tenancy rights in respect of any land by means of fraud or mis-representation or was not eligible to have such rights for any reason whatsoever then notwithstanding the acquisition of proprietary rights by such person in such land or the terms and conditions of any agreement with or rules issued by the Provincial Government without pre-judice to any other liability or penalty to which such person may be liable under any law for the time being in force, the Board of Revenue may, after giving such person a reasonable opportunity of showing cause pass and order resuming the land in respect of which proprietary rights have been acquired or reduce the area of such land or pass such order as it may deem fit".
The record of the case does not show that fraud of mis-representation has taken place at any stage, it is admitted that Jamal Din deceased had duly nominated respondent No.1 as his legal heir regarding the suit land after his death. The case was processed by many authorities and courts and the conveyance deed was issued after 15 years. This litigation could not have been out side the knowledge of the present petitioners who chose to keep silent for a period of nearly 24 years when they moved the present application in the Board of Revenue invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 30(2) of the Act ibid. This sub-section was incorporated by amending section 30 of the Act in the year 1978 and hence a period of 13 years was taken to invoke its provisions by the petitioners. Although there is lot of substance in the learned counsel for the petitioner's contention that there is no limitation in matters of inheritance in the Muslim Law yet the matter before the Board of Revenue is not that the inheritance but of cancellation of the conveyance deed issued in favour of respondent No. 1 as far back as 1981.
6. As has been seen above there is no fraud and of mis-representation detectable in this ease. Now it is to be seen whether respondent No. 1 was not eligible to have the tenancy rights in respect of the suit land notwithstanding the acquisition of proprietary rights. On this score also the petitioner's case does not meet the requirements of the law (any reason whatsoever) because respondent No. 1 was validly, nominated by Jamal Din and the Collector duly declared him eligible to inherit the tenancy vide his order dated 26.7.1966. These orders were again scrutinized by the learned Additional Commissioner and Commissioner, Multan Division., and the matter was finally decided in favour of Abdul Hameed on 11.3.1970. Therefore the respondent No. 1 eligibility is not in any doubt.
The case has to be seen in full perspective or its entire totality and not as an independent or separate or isolated variable of the family spectrum of inheritance. If Jamal Din deceased had managed to obtain two different lots under the Cooperative Farming Scheme and he nominated respondent No. 1 on the suit land and on the other petitioner No.1 as alleged then it remains to be seen whether Muhammad has applied the same standards and principles to the lot lading in his share as he expects respondent No.1 to do. Has Muhammad given to lot for division under the Shariat Law to all the legal heirs of Jamal Din deceased, or has he moved the Board of Revenue when he had applied a different principle to properly under his control, it is rather wishful to expect the Board of Revenue to lake up an isolated instance out of the total variables of the case without any reference to other factors which happen to be relevant in this case. The conduct of the petitioners is open to question; they have deliberately kept quiet for nearly 24 years, and at this belated stage have come up to the Board of Revenue for exercising its extraordinary powers for cancellation of conveyance deed whereas the matter clearly pertains to inheritance. This particular question can only be settled by the Civil Court and the parlies can avail that remedy, if so advised. The petition is otherwise devoid of force and is accordingly dismissed with costs.