Abdul Rehman, etc. Heirs of Hajran Bibi submitted an application to D.C./Collector for review of inheritance Mutation No. 140 of Mauza Patti Makool attested on 30th September, 1992 and Mutation No.257 of Mauza Shero Dasti attested on 21st February, 1993 on the ground that they being heirs of Mst. Hajran Bibi daughter of Bahawal Khan son of Umer were deprived of their share to which they were entitled under the provisions of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. Their application was accepted and directions were issued by D.C./Collector to Revenue Officer Halqa to decide the two mutations afresh. Against this order, dated 1st of March, 1994 of D.C./Collector, the respondents in the review petition filed appeal before Commissioner, D.G. Khan Division. In view of the fact that Muslim Families Laws Ordinance, 1961 were under examination of Federal Shariat Court for determination of any repugnancy of the provisions of the Ordinance with the Injunctions of Islam, the case was adjourned sine die by Commissioner on 30th July, 1995. Abdul Rehman, etc. Submitted a miscellaneous application to Commissioner for restoration of the original revision petition. Vide his order, dated 9th of June, 1996, Commissioner, Dera Ghazi Khan Division rejected the application and no date for hearing of the revision petition was fixed. Another application was submitted whereupon Commissioner heard the revision petition and vide -his order dated 15th September, 1997 dismissed it. Muhammad Ibrahim, etc. Have filed this revision petition against the order, dated 15th September, 1997 of Commissioner, Dera Ghazi Khan Division.
2. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that order of Commissioner, dated 15th September, 1997 is bad in law since it is tantamount to review of order of his predecessor which was taken up by him and decided without obtaining permission of the Board of Revenue, Punjab as required under section 163 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967. Referring to para. 63 of the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court reported in PLD 2000 FSC 1, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the provisions contained in section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 have been declared repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. These provisions, it is stated have been ordered to cease to have effect from 31st of March, 2000. It was further argued that the present petitioners were party to the proceedings before the Federal Shariat Court and Shariat Petition No.6/L filed by Muhammad Ibrahim, etc. Was also decided by the Federal Shariat Court alongwith other petitions vide its judgment referred to above.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents stated that the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court has no retrospective effect and as such was not applicable to the present case. It was further argued that taking up the case which earlier had been adjourned sine die does not amount to review of the previous order.
I have given careful consideration to the arguments of the parties. Not fixing a date for hearing of the case for whatever reason is not an order which determines any right qua the parties. The application, seeking hearing of the case earlier adjourned sine die, is not an application for review.
The objection of the learned counsel for the petitioners that prior permission of the Board of Revenue was required before the revision petition could be heard by Commissioner, therefore, is misconceived. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents that pronouncement of Federal Shariat Court does not have retrospective effect is also valid. The provisions of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 were applicable at the time passing of the order of D.C. /Collector as well as Commissioner, Dera Ghazi Khan. The heirs of the deceased daughter of Bahawal, therefore, cannot be deprived of their share of inheritance. The two orders suffer from no legal lacuna and as such are upheld. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed.