' Since both the revision petitions involve a common issue, hence these are disposed of through this single order.
2. Brief facts of the cases are that Lal Shah and Karan Shah sons of Muzamil Shah owned land respectively in Chaks Nos.371/W.B. And 370/W.B., Tehsil Dunyapur, District Lodhran. They having died issueless Mutations Nos.197 and 176 with regard to the inheritance of their said land were sanctioned on 13-5-1992 in favour of their brother Mehar Ali Shah the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents. Petitioner Bashir Shah challenged these mutations on the grounds that he also being a brother of deceased Lal Shah and Karam Shah had been deprived of his due share from their inheritance. His appeals on this account were accepted vide order, dated 29-6-1993 of the AC/Collector, Dunyapur who held that petitioner Bashir Shah being real brother of deceased Karam Shah was entitled to get his share from the inheritance of the latter. On the appeal of Bashir Shah, the Additional Commissioner (Revenue). Multan Division vide his order, dated 19-2-1994 set aside the order of the AC/Collector with the observations that Mst. Mimawaran Bibi sister of petitioner Bashir Shah was also entitled to get her share from the disputed inheritance and that this fact had been ignored by the lower Court. The Additional Commissioner remanded the case to the AC/Collector for fresh decision. The latter vide his order, dated 31-1-1995 set aside the said mutations with the directions that fresh mutations be sanctioned to give Bashir Ahmad Shah and Mst. Munawaran Bibi their due share from the inheritance of Karam Shah deceased. This order was challenged by the present respondents through two appeals which were accepted by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division vide his order dated 26-6-1996. The.
Additional Commissioner upheld the disputed mutations with the observations that the claim of Bashir Shah about his being a brother of deceased Lal Shah and Karam Shah was doubtful for various reasons and that he had challenged the mutations in the lower Court with a delay of 7 months and that the right of Munawaran Bibi in the disputed inheritance was a matter of enquiry.
This order of the Additional Commissioner has been challenged in the present revision petition.
Revision Petition No,1711 of 1996 relates to Mutation No,197 involving the inheritance of Lal Shah while Revision Petition No,1712 of 1996 relates to Mutation No,176 involving the inheritance of Karam Shah.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Lal Shah, Karam Shah, Mehar Ali Shah and petitioner Bashir Shah were real brothers who originally belonged to Village Padrar, Tehsil and District Khushab. That Lal Shah and Karam Shah having obtained lands in Lodhran District and having migrated there, they subsequently died issueless. That Mehar Ali Shah predecessor-in- interest of the respondents having died in 1992, his sons got the disputed mutations sanctioned in their favour with regard to the said lands of Karam Shah and Lal Shah who had died earlier. The learned counsel asserted that the petitioner also being a real brother of Lal Shah and Karam Shah, through the disputed mutations, he was deprived of his lawful share from their inheritance. The learned counsel produced a copy of the pedigree-table of Muzamil Shah father of Karam Shah etc. Issued by the Halqa Patwari of Village Padrar, District Khushab. According to the learned counsel, the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division did not accept this pedigree-table as a proof on the grounds that the name recorded therein was "Muhammad Bashir Shah" while the name of the petitioner in his Identity Card had been shown as Bashir Shah and in the appeal before him i.e, the Additional Commissioner, it had been shown as Bashir Ahmad Shah. The learned counsel, contended that Lal Shah, Karam Shah and Mehar Shah being sons of the said Muzamil Shah of Village Padrar, Tehsil and District Khushab, identity of the petitioner as their brother and a son of Muzamil Shah was not at all doubtful. According to the learned counsel, it was simply due to the mistake of the Patwaris of Village Padrar that in the afore-mentioned table the name of the petitioner had been shown as "Muhammad Bashir Shah" instead of Bashir Shah. The learned counsel also produced a copy of Mutation No,9707 of Village Padrar which was sanctioned on 22-1- 1992 with regard to the inheritance of Muzamil Shah. The learned counsel asserted that through this mutation the landed property of Muzamil Shah was mutated in favour of his legal heirs i.e, Lal Shah, Karam Shah, Mehar Ali Shah and Muhammad Bashir Shah sons and Munawaran Bibi daughter. The learned counsel pointed out that in this mutation as well, the same mistake had been repeated with regard to the name of the petitioner. The learned counsel also produced a copy of the relevant entries of the Jamabandi for the year 1987-88 of Village Padrar wherein again Lai Shah, Karam Shah, Mehar Ali Shah and Muhammad Bashir Shah had been shown as sons of Muzamil Shah. The learned counsel contended that the person named as Muhammad Bashir Shah in the said documents was actually petitioner Bashir Shah whose name had been mistakenly recorded therein as "Muhammad Bashir Shah". With regard to the observations of the Additional Commissioner about the petitioner having omitted to mention Munawaran Bibi as a legal heir of deceased Lal Shah and Karam Shah; the learned counsel asserted that it was not obligatory on the petitioner to do the same as it was for Munawaran Bibi herself to agitate for her right in the disputed inheritance. The learned counsel pointed out that while the impugned mutations related to the lands of Chaks Nos.370/W.B. And 371/W.B., the -witness to the attestation of these mutations was shown of a person who did not belong to the said Chaks. The learned counsel further asserted that the said mutations having been sanctioned on the back of the petitioner he challenged these soon after his acquiring knowledge about the same. That, therefore, the question of his appeals being time - barred by 7 months did not arise. With these arguments, the learned counsel pleaded that the impugned order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division may be set aside and the petitioner be allowed his due share from the inheritance of deceased Lal Shah and Karam Shah.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that besides the appeals of the petitioner against the disputed mutations being time-barred, the Additional Commissioner had held his claim doubtful. According to the learned counsel, Munawaran Bibi had never agitated for her right in the inheritance of Lal Shah and Karam Shah. The learned counsel contended that the claim of the petitioner requires thorough enquiry which can be made only by the Civil Court and hence the Revision Petition be dismissed.
4. I have made a careful scrutiny of the relevant facts involved in this case vis-a-vis the opposing contention of the parties. The issue central to the decision of this case is whether the petitioner is a brother of deceased Lal Shah and Karam Shah etc. And a son of Muzamil Shah or not. No concrete evidence to disprove his claim of being a son of Muzamil Shah of Village Padrar, Tehsil and District Khushab was produced before the Additional Commissioner. The Identity Card of the petitioner (copy on file) shows him as a son of the said Muzamil Shah.. Besides, the aforementioned pedigree-table, Mutation No,9707 and Jamabandi Entries for 1987-88 relating to Village Padrar show Lal Shah, Karam Shah and Mehar Ali Shah and Munawaran Bibi as a daughter. Under no norm of justice, the mere fact of the name "Muhammad Bashir A Shah" having been recorded in the said documents instead of the name "Bashir Shah" could be made the basis for the conclusive verdict that he was not a son of the said Muzamil Shah. The basic name being "Bashir Shah" addition of' the word "Muhammad" with the same in the aforementioned documents could simply be a mistake on the part of the Halqa Patwari which is nothing unusual with our Patwaris who rarely work with a sense of responsibility of the required degree. Besides, in our rural areas, due to lack of education and awareness, people are not much particular about the correct recording of their names in the official documents to which they hardly have an easy access.The hard fact is that had the said "Muhammad Bashir Shah" been a different person than the petitioner, then certainly he would had turned up at one forum or the other to agitate his claim as a son of Muzamil Shah with regard to his share from the disputed inheritance of his deceased brothers Lal Shah and.
Karam Shah. Besides, in such a case, the respondents would certainly had produced some proof in the relevant Courts about the identity of the said "Muhammad Bashir Shah" as a person different from petitioner Bashir Shah. However, no such proof having been brought forth before the lower Courts as well as this Court, the aforementioned Revenue Record i.e, the pedigree-table, Mutation No,9707 and, the Jamabandi Entries of village Padrar clearly establish that deceased Lal Shah and Karam Shah and Mehar Ali Shah (the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents) originally belonged to the said village of Tehsil Khushab and were the sons of Muzamil Shah and petitioner Bashir Shah was their brother besides a sister named Munawaran Bibi. However, the fact of the Lal Shah, Karam Shah and Mehar Ali Shah originally hailing from Village Padrar was all along wilfully concealed by the respondents in order to grab the lawful shares of petitioner Bashir Shah and Munawaran Bibi from the disputed inheritance of Lal Shah and Karam Shah. Even otherwise, how could a stranger from a too distant village situated in a far-flung mountainous area of District Khushab suddenly land in a region located more than a 100 miles distantly and assert his claim in the inheritance of other strangers i.e, Lal Shah and Karam Shah. On every account, such a phenomenon is unbelievable. Above all, how could the identity of the petitioner as a living person openly proclaiming himself to be a son of deceased Muzamil Shah and a C. Brother of Lal Shah and Karam Shah remain as an unknotted mystery in these times when the nationals of the country are identified and nabbed in distant corners of other countries situated on the other side of the, globe. I cannot help observing that due to his obvious mala fides in the matter, while the Additional Commissioner dismissed everything adduced by the petitioner to establish his identity as a son of Muzamil Shah and a brother of deceased Lal Shah and Karam Shah, he did not ask the respondents to prove the identity of the petitioner to the contrary. Thus, very manifestly, the Additional Commissioner took a distorted view of the matter and by giving a tilt to it dismissed the appeals of the petitioner on frivolous and flimsy grounds. Under the Muhammadan Law, the property of a Muslim devolves on his legal heirs from the time of his death and on no account such heirs can be deprived of their shares from such an inheritance. Petitioner Bashir Shah undoubtedly being a brother of deceased Lal Shah and Karam Shah, he and Munawaran Bibi (a sister) were dishonestly deprived of their lawful shares under the Muhammadan Law from the inheritance of Lal Shah and Karam Shah through the disputed Mutations Nos.197 and 176. The mutation orders in question reflect that both the mutations (involving land of two different Chaks) were sanctioned on the same day without any proper ascertainment about the legal heirs of Lal Shah and Karam Shah and without any reliable evidence to substantiate the bogus pedigree-table relied upon by the Revenue Officer. The latter had actually collided with the respondents due to ulterior motives. Thus, the mutations were sanctioned dishonestly and unlawfully. No doubt, complicated matters requiring detailed enquiry warrant decisions by the Civil Courts, The enunciation made by the superior Courts about the matters requiring detailed enquiry being in the purview of the Civil Courts has to be applied honestly and judiciously. It has not to be resorted to as a dictum in each and every case. On the other hand, it has to be seen whether a case qualifies for attracting the applicability of this principle and general nature. Thus, there must be substantial, concrete and justifiable reasons to determine whether a matter requires a detailed enquiry of the sort. An honest appraisal of the facts and events of the present case leads one to the conclusion that no complicated matter requiring a detailed enquiry is involved therein. For the detailed reasons discussed above, the identity of petitioner Bashir Shah as a son of Muzamil Shah and as a brother of Lal Shah and Karam Shah is not shrouded in any mystery and speaks loudly for itself.
5. For the foregoing reasons, I accept the revision petition and set aside the impugned order dated 26-6-1996 of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division. As a consequence, the disputed Mutations Nos.197 and 176 would stand cancelled. The Hahia Revenue Officer is directed to sanction fresh mutations about the inheritance of deceased Lal Shah and Karam Shah for their lands of Chaks Nos.371/W.B . And 370/W.B., Tehsil and District Lodhran. Thereby, petitioner Bashir Shah, Munawaran Bibi and other legal heirs be given their due shares under the Muhammadan Law from the said inheritance.
6. A copy of this order be sent to Tehsildar Dunyapur for ensuring timely sanction of the fresh mutations accordingly.