1996 PLP 374 (CLC)

The dispute raised in this petition under Article ‑199 of the Constitution relates to the inheritance of Ghulam Nabi deceased. His daughters and wife claim that he was a Shia. Allah Dad who is son of his uncle claims that he was a Sunni. The Deputy Commissioner directed the Assistant Collector to decide the question whether the deceased was a Shia or Sunni, in the open assembly in the village after taking summary evidence. The Assistant Collector examined the large number of witnesses from both sides and came to the conclusion that the deceased was a Shia. Accordingly, the inheritance mutation was sanctioned in accordance with the Shia Law of Inheritance. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Collector was accepted on the ground that the deceased was presumed to be a Sunni unless proved otherwise. The Additional Commissioner maintained the order of the Collector, inter cilia, on incorrect consideration that this was a concurrent finding by two Courts below, although orders of two Courts below were at variance. The daughters and widow of the deceased went before the Member, Board of Revenue in revision. The learned Member vide the impugned order has exhaustively dealt with each and every aspect of the case and has come to the conclusion that the mutation proceedings are summary in nature and the Revenue Officer is only required to conduct summary inquiry to ascertain relevant facts. Such an inquiry was conducted on the spot and on the basis of evidence recorded by the Revenue Officer it was held that the deceased was Shia. The learned Member, Board of Revenue maintained the order passed by the Assistant Collector and set aside those of the Collector and the Additional Commissioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the learned Member, Board of Revenue has not considered that the deceased paid Ushar and his funeral prayer was performed by a Sunni Maulvi Sahib. These facts have been duly attended to by the learned Member, Board of Revenue in the impugned order. There is no jurisdictional error in the order passed by him.

3. This is established proposition of law that mutations do not create rights or title in respect of property and no one gets vested right merely on the basis of a mutation. Decision of the Revenue Authorities in mutation proceedings is not a decision as to the title of parties. Mutation is sanctioned by the Revenue Authorities to keep their record in order and uptodate. I am fortifed in this view by a D.B. judgment of this Court in Muhammad Iqbal v. SA.M. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, Lahore (PLD 1970 Lahore 614).

4. As a matter of fact writ petition against the order of the Revenue Authorities, passed in mutation proceedings cannot be challenged in writ jurisdiction on account of the availability of adequate alternate remedy to the aggrieved person by resolving the dispute on the regular side of the Civil Court. In the aforequoted judgment it was held by their lordships as follows:‑‑ "Furthermore, a petition under Article 98 is competent only if there is no other adequate alternate remedy available to the person invoking this extraordinary jurisdiction. In a case where a person is aggrieved by an order of a Revenue Officer, it is open to him to challenge the mutation proceedings on the regular side of the Civil Court. In Umar said v. Faiz Muhammad Khan PLD 1961 Pesh. 110 Kayani, CJ., observed: `We are however, familiar with the ordinary resort to a Civil Court after a mutation has been effected, when a question of title' arises.' In this view of the matter also, the petition is not competent." In view of this legal proposition, the petitioner has alternate remedy before the Civil Court for adjudication of his inheritance rights. Therefore, the instant petition is not maintainable.

5. For what has been discussed above, this petition is dismissed in limine. AA./A‑891/L Petition dismissed