ORDER MIAN MUHAMMAD JAMIL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II).- This revision petition has been filed in this Court u/S. 164 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 against the order-dated 19.8.1996 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), D.G.Khan Division, Dera Ghazi Khan, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner and maintained the order of the AC/Collector.
Alipur, dated 24.10.1994 regarding inheritance mutation No. 692, dated 9.3.1994 of Mauza Missan Kot Bhowa. Tehsil Alipur, District Muzaffargarh.
2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have mutely g<)ne through the record of the case i.e. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order on the ground that inheritance mutation No. 692 of Ghulam Sarwar (deceased) was validly sanctioned on 9.3.1994 by the Revenue Officer. Halqa after observing all. The. Formalities/requirements of the law which has subsequently been upset on appeal by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Alipur through his order dated 24.10 .1994 on the simple ground that the petitioner was not real daughter of deceased Ghulam Sarwar, therefore, she was not entitled to the inheritance. The determination of the relationship of the legal heirs is the exclusive purview of the Civil Court as held in chain of authorities and as complicated question of law and facts is involved, both Assistant Commissioner and the lower Court were not competent to upset the validly sanctioned mutation. The revenue Officer, passed the mutation after satisfying himself on the basis of ' Nikahnama' in which she is clearly shown as daughter of deceased Ghulam Sarwar but these facts were ignored and relying upon the statement of mother of the petitioner, impugned orders have been passed whereas revenue Courts were not competent to give any verdict in the case of determination of the legal heirs. Therefore, by accepting the present revision petition, both the impugned orders may be set- aside.
3. On the other had, learned counsel for the respondents states- that both the lower Courts fully satisfied themselves that petitioner has - wrongly been given share in the property of the deceased because mother of the petitioner herself admitted in her statement before both the Courts that the petitioner's father was one Moosa and not Ghulam Sarwar because Moosa was her previous husband and petitioner was born out of the wedlock of Mst. Subhal. Therefore, both the lower Courts correctly decided to upset the impugned mutation. It. Was got sanctioned fraudulently, therefore, immediately after the sanction of the inheritance mutation the area was immediately further transferred through mutation Nos. 725 and 726 which further proves the mala i.e of the petitioner. After having ,, transferred the area further the petitioner has no locus standi to i.e even the present revision petition. Therefore, by maintaining the impugned order, the revision petition may be dismissed.
4. After having heard the learned counsels of the -parties and ha\ ing perused the record, it transpires that the dispute (sic) between the p.u ties regarding determination of the relationship of the petitioner with the deceased Ghulam Sarwer. Petitioner claims to be daughter of Ghulam Sarwer whereas respondents allege that she is daughter of Moosa and not of Ghulam Sarwar. Both parties do not dispute the maternity of the petitioner. Since paternity of any person is very sensitive issue, it has to be established beyond any doubt, by the competent forum which is always the Civil Court which after detailed enquiry, examination and cross-examination of. The witnesses and other requirements given final verdict. Determination of the legal heirs and determination of the relationship of the persons is always a matter of detailed enquiry, it cannot be under taken and established in summary manner. Since the revenue Courts/authorities always take summary proceedings, therefore, their finding cannot be reliable in these sensitive issues/matters because such findings are going to have ever lasting bearing for posterity.
5. Therefore, to my mind, both the learned lower Courts have acted beyond jurisdiction declaring the petitioner as daughter of Moosa whereas petitioner herself claims to be daughter of Ghulam Sarwer and Revenue Officer also held her so in open village assembly while sanctioning the inheritance mutation which bears the thumb mark of the same mother who has subsequently made the statement before the revenue Courts that she is not daughter of Ghulam Sarwar but daughter of Moosa whereas in the pedigree table drawn on the impugned mutation she has been shown as daughter of Ghulam Sarwer and Revenue Officer also satisfied himself after presentation of the Nikahnama which showed her as daughter of Ghulam Sarwer before the sanctioned mutation. Thus, the duly sanctioned mutation after observing all the formalities of the law could not be upset the revenue Courts on the basis of a finding drawn through the summary proceedings.
Therefore, both the orders are set-aside, mutation No. 692 is kept intact and parties can establish their claim in the Civil Court if they so desire.