' The relevant facts for the decision of this Constitutional petition are that Mst. Hurmatey widow of Karim Bakhsh was allotted disputed land, which was sold by her vide Mutation No,160 dated 13-9- 1962 in favour of Abdul Rehmanrespondent No,8 and Abdul Aziz, father of respondents Nos.4 to 7.
The petitioners filed an application under section 3 of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)
Application (Removal of Difficulties) Ordinance, 1975. The application was treated as appeal and was dismissed by the A.C., Sammundri, District Faisalabad vide order dated 4-5-1977, which was assailed through an appeal before the Additional Commissioner but the appeal was dismissed on 111-1977 while the revision was dismissed by respondent No,1 vide order dated 22-6-1980. Thereafter the petitioners filed the present Constitutional petition, which was admitted to hearing and notice was issued to the respondents. Respondents Nos.4 to 8 have appeared through Mr. M.A. Zafar, Advocate while respondents. Nos.1 to 3 reported that Government interest is not involved, therefore, their presence is not necessary.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the application of the petitioners under section 3 of the Ordinance 1975 was wrongly and illegally treated as time-barred by respondent No,3. It is added that all female allottees of evacuee agricultural land were to be treated limited owners. In this behalf, the learned counsel has referred to Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sargodha v. Muhammad Shafi and others (PLD 1971 SC 791).
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.4 to 8 argued that the application was not competent because the requirement of section 3 of Ordinance 1975 was that the order could not be challenged earlier and the application was to be moved within one year. It is added that the petitioners not only once but have twice challenged the mutation earlier. In this behalf, the learned counsel has referred to Annexure 'C', according to which, the first appeal was dismissed by the Collector on 12-1-1963 while the revision of the petitioners was dismissed by the Commissioner on 11-6-1963. The matter was not further pursued by them. Thereafter they moved another application, which was dismissed. The decision was assailed in appeal, which was dismissed by the Collector on 30-9-1972 while appeal was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Sargodha on 20-2-1973 and the revision was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 4-8-1977 after the promulgation of Ordinance of 1975, therefore, their application was not competent.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the record. The precise question for determination is interpretation of section 3 of the Ordinance of 1975, which reads as under:-- "3. Permission to file fresh suits, etc.-- 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 Ordinance."
It is clear from the above provision that the condition precedent for invoking section 3 of Ordinance 1975 was that the transfer could not be challenged earlier. This is not the case here. The petitioners have already challenged the transfer twice, therefore, the application was not competent.
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in this writ petition. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs.