K. E. CHAUHAN, J.-The following pedigree-table will be helpful in understanding the facts of this case :- Akbar GamJeewa Allah DittaMst. Begum Mai (His heirs are(Her heirs are petitioners inrespondents in this this petition) petition)
2. Gam son of Akbar was a refugee right-holder. It appears that on a claim form filed for the land left by him in India, the land in dispute was allotted against his name in two villages, namely, (i)
Mauza Samra Thal Jhandi, Hadbast No. 115 and (ii) Mauza Thind Khurd, Tehsil Leiah, District Muzaffargarh. The date of death of Gam as also relationship of various claimants is in dispute between the parties but it appears that when mutation of his inheritance bearing Hadbast No. 115 was taken up, it was sanctioned on 15-5-1953, solely in favour of the present petitioners who claim to be heirs of or through Allah Ditta ignoring the contesting respondents who claim to be heirs of or through Mst. Begum Mai. Similarly, Mutatijn No. 49 which pertained to succession of Jeewa a brother of Gam was taken up with regard to land in Mauza Thind Khurd and was sanctioned in favour of the same set of persons on 15-12-63. In this way, the respondents who claim to be heirs of or through Mst. Begum Mai nourished a grievance which gave rise to a multiple litigation as hereinafter explained.
2-A. The respondents on 10-12-1969 filed a suit challenging the aforesaid mutations and for a declaration that they were also heirs of the concerned propositus and eligible to get land to the extent of their respective shares. This suit Was decreed by the Civil Judge, Leiah on 2-5-1972, but on appeal was dismissed on 12-10-1973 by the District judge, Muzaffargarh on the ground that civil Courts had no jurisdiction to decide such matters which involved questions of inheritance of deceased refugee right-holders and which were according to law to be determined by the Settlement Authorities in accordance with the relevant Scheme on the subject. After giving this finding he directed that the plaint be returned to the present respondents for presentation to the proper Tribunal.
3. Taking clue from the aforesaid, it appears that the respondents filed a revision petition before the Addl. Settlement Commissioner which was accepted by him on 3-4-1976, and after holding that as the mutations had been decided ex parte, he directed that the same should be decided afresh after giving an opportunity to the respondents to support their case in accordance with law. The present petitioners tiled a further revision against the aforesaid order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner which was accepted by the Settlement Commissioner (Land) on 12-1-1977 on the ground that there was no justification to re-open such a belated matter.
4. The respondents filed a Writ Petition bearing No. 195/R/77, challenging, the order of the Settlement Commissioner, dated 12-1-1977. A learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court set aside that order holding that the Settlement Commissioner was not legally competent and authorised to hear a further revision from the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The learned Single Judge also set aside the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner because according to him he had not adverted to the point of limitation; the date of the knowledge of the respondents regarding attestation of the relevant mutations; and other grounds which were being pleaded as a bar on the part of the respondents to invoke his revisional jurisdiction. He, therefore, remanded the case to the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner to decide the revision petition afresh keeping in view also Para. 67 of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme which authorises such heirs who earlier may have beets ignored to get the matter of inheritance re-determined. The order of the learned Single Judge is dated 1-2-1978. The petitioners have come up in a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal against the same.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in his arguments at the Bar before us did not challenge the finding of the learned Single Judge about the lack of jurisdiction and authority on the part of the Settlement Commissioner in entertaining and hearing a second revision against the revisional order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner. From this point of view, the order of the learned Single Judge quashing the order of the Settlement Commissioner, dated 12-1-1977, and remanding the case to the Additional Settlement Commissioner, calls for no interference and is liable to be maintained.
6. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, however, was that though the learned Single Judge in the circumstances above-stated rightly remanded the case to the Additional Settlement Commissioner and rightly observed that he should decide the case afresh after attending to the point of limitation; the date of knowledge of the respondents regarding attestation of the relevant mutation and other grounds which were being pleaded by the petitioners as a bar on the part of the respondents to move into the matter allegedly at such a belated stage, but the observation of the learned Single Judge that Paragraph 67 of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme should also be taken note of was not called for, because that Para., according to the learned counsel, was not relevant in the context and over all facts and circumstances of the present case, The contention has no merit. The said paragraph reads as follows :---- "67. Mutations of inheritance.-(t) Cases relating to the succession to deceased right-holders from the prescribed territory will be decided expeditiously by the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner who will pass orders on the mutation of succession in the form (Appendix VI) prescribed for the purpose and deliver possession immediately thereafter to the persons concerned.
(2) In cases where the question of inheritance of evacuee land is involved and the inheritors live in different districts, the necessary number of copies of fardhaqiat will be prepared by the Central Record Office and supplied to the district offices concerned for distribution to all the claimants. In all such cases, the mutation may be decided and entered in the district in which the claimants reside. Allotments made in pursuance of this decision will be purely provisional and subject to subsequent changes, if necessitated by factual evidence. Copies of decisions in these mutations should be exchanged amongst the different districts and if in any of these districts a discrepancy is found, the matter should be referred by the local officers to the Rehabilitation Commissioner, West Pakistan, for a final decision pending which the claimants should be allowed to retain the land allotted to then, under different mutations.
(3) The Rehabilitation Authority will not charge any fee for the cases of inheritance for which the form has been prescribed above but subsequent mutations of inheritance will be entered in the regular mutation register as this would involve a change in the entries of the revenue records.
(Reference former Punjab Government Memoran--dum No. 3705-R(L), dated 2nd June, 1951, No. 8'282-R(L) dated 25th October, 1951, No. 2584-R(L), dated 4th April, 1952 and No. 6446-R (L), dated 3rd July 1952).
(4) An alphabetical list in the form prescribed in Appendix XXIX should be prepared in each tahsil/taluka of each heir of a deceased refugee right-holder who has received an allotment as a result of such mutation. These lists when completed should be consolidated in the district headquarters and then submitted to the Officer on Special Duty, Central Record Office, attached to the Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, through the Commissioners of the respective divisions.
(Reference Board of Revenue Memorandum No. 782-56/1032-R(P), dated 10th March, 1956)."
A perusal of the above provision of law will show that it clearly indicates that first mutation of succession is just of a provisional nature and for this reason it leaves scope for other heirs to get their entitlement also scrutinized by bringing true and relevant facts to the knowledge of the authorities concerned. It is well known that with the setting up of Pakistan, large number of refugees came here from India. They settled in this part of the country and for a good deal of time even members of one and the same family remained out of contact with one another due to the very nature of the circumstances then existing. Efforts were made to rehabilitate and settle such refugees on land and for this purpose the relevant Scheme or Schemes were prepared by the authorities concerned. In such a situation and in such circumstances where for instance members of the same family were settled in different villages or different districts. It was not possible that mutation of inheritance of a deceased refugee-right-holder should beef decided in the presence of all claimants who probably might not be even in the know of any such proceedings being taken up in villages other than those where they themselves might be living. To meet this situation, Para. 67 provided that Settlement work should not be kept in abeyance, but mutation might be sanctioned in provisional manner and later if any heir who felt that he was left out, he could press his claim and get a regular mutation sanctioned afresh. If, therefore, the learned Single Judge directed the Additional Settlement Commissioner to re-decide the case before him after also keeping in view this Paragraph, there is nothing wrong in his order.
It will be appreciated that when on the one hand the learned Single Judge bad directed that plea as to limitation, laches and conduct of the respondents which were being advanced by the present petitioners should be taken into consideration, he was quite justified in observing that similarly on the other hand, the provisions of Para. 67 of the Scheme should also not be lost sight of. The order of the learned Single Judge maintains the balance between the parties and calls for no interference.
The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.