ORDER MIAN MUHAMMAD JAMIL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II) - These two revision petitions have been filed against the order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue1), Lahore Division,. Lahore, dated 31.5.1997, whereby he dismissed the appeal of i.e petitioners regarding transfer of inheritance of Gaman in favour of i.e respondents.
2. The brief facts of i.e case are that the Gaman was lessee of State land measuring 12 acres, 3 kanals and 19 marlas in Chak No. 55/DB. Respondents Nos, 3 to 5 submitted an application before i.e A.C./Collector, Depalpur stating therein that the said Ghulam Hussain alias Gaman had died and they being collaterals of the deceased were entitled to the inheritance. The A.C./Collector accepted the application and transferred the inheritance of Gaman in their favour vide his order dated 16.2.1987. Appeal against the said order of the A.C./Collector, Depalpur was filed which was dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division vide impugned order dated 3J.5.1997. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The learned counsel for the petitioners assails the impugned order on the following grounds:-
(i) In case of death of any lessee, tenancy can be transferred to the legal heirs only by the order of the District Collector whereas in this case the tenancy was transferred by the order of the Assistant Commissioner. In support of his contention, he has produced the policy letter dated 20.9.1993;
(ii) Inheritance could not be denied to any of the legal heirs even if it was not claimed particularly the were and daughters along with brothers are folly entitled to get the inheritance which has been denied in the impugned order.
4. On the other had, the learned counsel for the respondents state that none of the legal heirs has been denied the right because only sharers are competent to get the inheritance first. Residuary and remote come afterwards. In the absence of residuary, remote cannot take the share of the right-holders. The petitioners being .Residuaries being the sons/daughters of the second were of late Sawan, therefore, they were not entitled in the presence of the sharers. Thus, the inheritance was rightly fixed.
5. After listening to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I have come to the conclusion that the impugned order is well-based. There is no doubt that the complicated question of inheritance is involved in this case. If the petitioners are not satisfied, the^ have already been provided an opportunity^ to seek remedy from the Civil Court vide impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order is upheld. The petitioners can approach the Civil Court for establishment of relationship and any claim under inheritance of late Sawan.