The private parties to this petition are contesting the inheritance of Gam who died before partition in India. On 15th May, 1963 respondents 1, 2 and 3 got a mutation of inheritance of Gam sanctioned in village Sumra, Thal Gandi, District Muzaffargarh. Another mutation was sanctioned in the name of the same respondents on 5th December, 1963 in village Thind Khurd, Muzaffargarh. No appeal or revision was filed within the time provided by law by any aggrieved person. On 10th December, 1969, the petitioners, who claim themselves also to be heirs of Gam filed a civil suit. It was decreed on 2nd May, 1972 in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. The respondents went up in appeal which was accepted on the ground that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such matters.
2. The petitioners then reverted to the Settlement Authorities. An appeal was filed by them on 5th June, 1974. It came up before the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Muzaffargarh, who vide his order dated 3rd April, 1976 accepted the appeal and directed that a fresh inquiry be made into the entitlement of the petitioners as heirs. The respondents challenged that order in a revision petition which " as accepted vide the impugned order dated 12th January, 1977, mainly for the reason that a mutation of inheritance had been sanctioned as far back as in 1953, it could not be re-opened at that late stage.
3. It is contended before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. Reliance was placed on section 2 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 to say that the Additional Settlement Commissioner had decided the case as an officer notified and not strictly as an Additional Settlement Commissioner. He further submitted that no appeal or revision had been provided against the order of the officer notified in the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act and, therefore, the impugned order is without lawful authority.
4. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents did not have much to say against this legal objection. His contention was that the Additional Settlement Commissioner exercised powers under he Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act and, therefore, a power of revision already allowed to the respondents could not be taken away. Reliance was also placed on section 6 of the General Clauses Act.
5. I, however, do not agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents.
The Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act had been repealed and the pending cases were transferred to an officer notified for the purpose. He exercised only the powers as were available to a relevant Settlement Authority under the repealed law. In this view of the matter, he was a persona designate though exercising certain powers but his order was subject to any appeal or revision. In this view of the matter the impugned order is without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
6. Before granting any relief to the petitioners, however, it is to be seen that even the Additional Settlement Commissioner in his order did not proceed on valid grounds to condone the delay. The Settlement Commissioner also in his order did not correctly state that the mutations of inheritance had been attested in 1953. From the record as it is before me, the mutations of inheritance bad been sanctioned on 15th May, 1963 and 5th December, 1963. The Additional Settlement Commissioner, in the circumstances, should have considered the relevant grounds, i. e. The date of knowledge of the mutations and other grounds preventing the petitioners from proceeding with the matter within the prescribed time. We may also refer to para. 67 of Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme read with Appendix VI mentioned therein, under which the mutations of inheritance could be attested in the name of one successor to start with and the same could be changed subsequently. It may mean that the first mutation was not final and any other heir could come up to get it re-opened. In any case the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, as it is, cannot be upheld as it will amount to acting in aid of injustice.
For the reasons given above, the orders of the Settlement Commissioner as well as the Additional Settlement Commissioner are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal affect. The revision petition filed by the petitioners shall be deemed to be a pending case under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, and shall be considered and decided afresh by a competent authority in the light of the observations made above. Parties, in the circumstances of the case, shall bear their own costs.