' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.1024 and 1025 of 1985 as both involve common questions of law and facts and proceed against a common judgment of respondent No,1 .
2. The admitted facts are that Syed Amir Haider Shah, the late father of the petitioner and respondents Nos.5 to 9 owned land in villages Fazil Shah and Khanewal Kohna, Tehsil Kabirwala. He died in the year 1962. It so happened that in the inheritance mutation taken up in respect of the land in village Fazil Shah the same was mutated in favour of the petitioner and his brother Mushtaq Shah (the petitioner in the connected writ petition) their sisters i,e,, respondents Nos.5 to 9 and mother Mst. Saidan Bibi. Mutation No,11 was attested on 13-8-1963. The mutation of inheritance No,273 was taken up in respect of the land in village Khanewal Kohna but the land in the said village came to be mutated only in the name of the said two brothers. This mutation was attested on 23-4-1964. The respondent ladies challenged the said mutation No,273 by filing a civil suit claiming a declaration that they are entitled to 5/9th share in the estate of their late father. This suit was decreed on 18-3-1977. Similarly the appeal filed by respondents Nos.5 to 9 against the said mutation was allowed by the ssistant Commissioner/Collector on 1-4-1977. Resultantly mutation No,275 in village Khanewal Kohna was attested on 30-4-1977 and respondents Nos.5 to 9 were recorded to be owners of their Muslim Law share in the land owned by their late father. The two petitioners filed declaration forms. The matter came up before the Deputy Land Commissioner, Multan on 4-8-1997 who found that the sisters were the heirs of late Ghulam Haider Shah and the land belonging to them cannot be included in the holding of the two petitioners. Calculations were accordingly made and the land found in excess of the permissible limit was resumed. Some disputes arose as to the means of irrigation of the land which had bearing on the calculation of the P.I. Units. The matter again came up before the Deputy Land Commissioner. This time, however, on the directions of the Federal Land Commission's Inspection Team the land owned by respondents Nos.5 to 9 was included in the holding of the two petitioners and accordingly the excess area was resumed. This was done vide order, dated 9-5-1984 of the Deputy Land Commissioner (Annexure-I). Feeling aggrieved the two petitioners filed an appeal which was heard by respondent No,2 who rejected the same on 20-1-1985. The revisions filed by the petitioners were heard by respondent No,1 who dismissed the same on 23-4-1985.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned orders of respondents Nos.1 to 3 are void inasmuch as they proceed against the injunctions of Holy Qur'an and also the law declared by the superior judiciary of the country. Learned Law Officer tried to support the impugned orders.
4. We have gone through the documents appended with the writ petition. The facts narrated by us above are borne out from the said documents.
5. None of the reasons stated by respondent No,1 to uphold the order of respondents Nos.2 and 3 has impressed us. Respondent No,1 has unduly indulged into the irrelevant facts. It is but an admitted position on record and in the order of respondent No,1 himself that the land belonged to the father of the two petitioners and the respondent ladies. This being so, the estate of the last male owner came to vest in his heirs the moment he breathed his last. Under the Islamic jurisprudence no State or individual intervention is required or is necessary for devolution of the estate of a deceased owner upon his heirs defined in the Holy Qur'an in accordance with the shares allocated to them by Allah Almighty. Reference may here be made to the case of Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 SC 1). The fact that the mutation was entered late or that the ladies approached the Court after the date stipulated in the Land Reforms dispensation is wholly.
Irrelevant. We are constrained to hold that the impugned orders are not only illegal but are without lawful authority and are perverse. Accordingly we allow both the writ petitions, set aside the impugned orders passed by respondents Nos.1 to 4 by declaring them to be without lawful authority. The result would be that the initial order passed by the learned Deputy Land Commissioner, dated 4-8-1977 (Annexure-G to the writ petition), shall remain intact and hold the field. The parties are left to bear their own costs.