1972 PLP 458 (SCMR)

ANWARUL HAQ, J.‑The dispute in this case concerns the inheritance of evacuee land situate in Chak No. 209/R. B., Tehsil and District, Lyallpur, which was allotted under the Rehabilita tion Settlement Scheme to a widow named Mst. Bago on her migration from India. She died in 1955, before permanent rights could be conferred upon her under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. By an order made on 31st July 1956, the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands) directed that the land held by Mst. Bago should be mutated in the following manner. (i) Petitioners, Abdul Karim, Abdul Wahid, sons of the brother of the last male owner, Rahmatullah. 3/8th share (ii) The four respondents, sons of Rehmatullah's daughter Mst. Zainab. 1/2 share (iii) Personal heirs of Mst. Bago. 1/8th share Aggrieved by this order of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands), the petitioners instituted a civil suit on 12‑11‑1956 for a declaration to the effect that they were entitled to 3/4 share in the property left by Rehmatullah, and consequent ly in the lands obtained in lieu thereof in Pakistan by Mst. Bago. The petitioners asserted that the sons of Mst. Zainab had no claim whatsoever as she had predeceased her father, Rahmatullah. The suit was decreed by the trial Court, but in appeal the learned Additional District Judge held that the civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. This view has been upheld in second appeal by a learned Single Judge of the High Court. In support of the present petition for special leave to appeal, it is contended that the learned Additional District Judge as well as the learned Single Judge in the High Court have fallen in error in thinking that the question of inheritance opening at the death of Mst. Bago was a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Settlement authorities. It seems to the learned counsel that in accordance with para. 67 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, under which the allotment had been made provisional permanent in favour of Mst. Bago, only the cases of inheritance relating to the right‑holders as distinguished from allottees, were to be decided by the Rehabilitation Department, whereas all other matters fell within the purview of the ordinary revenue authorities, with the necessary consequence that in this last category of cases the civil Courts would have jurisdiction. After hearing the learned counsel at some length, we are of the view that no justification is made out for our interference in the matter. The reference by the learned counsel to para. 67 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme does not advance the matter. It is true that this paragraph primarily deals with the procedure for sanctioning mutations relating to the succession to deceased right‑holders from the prescribed territory in India, but for that reason it cannot be said that cases relating to the inheritance of allottees, as distinguished from deceased right holders, would be dealt with by the ordinary revenue authorities and be also amenable to the jurisdiction of the civil Courts. The question of jurisdiction in such cases has to be decided with reference to the relevant provisions appearing in the Rehabilita tion and evacuee laws obtaining at the time of Mst. Bago's death. The High Court has rightly taken note of section 12 of the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1948, which was in force in 1955. As the land allotted to Mst. Bago under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme had continued to retain its evacuee character, it was not amenable to the jurisdiction of the civil Courts in view of the bar contained in section 12 of the Act. A similar exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil Courts is embodied in section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. It has been consistently held by this Court as well as by the High Courts in West Pakistan that as long as the land continues to retain its evacuee character, prior to conferment of permanent rights under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, the jurisdiction of the ordinary Courts is barred, irrespective of the fact that the question of inheritance involved relates to a deceased right‑holder or a deceased allottee. Reference in this behalf may be made to Mst. Zainab v. Mst. Raji and others (P L D 1960 S C 229), Abdur Rashid v. Pakistan (P L D 1962 S C 42), Muhammad Hassan v. Mumtaz Hussain (P L D 1965 Lah. 35) and Ahmad Dirt v. Muhammad Shafi (P L D 1971 S C 762). Such being the case, the High Court was right in holding that the civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. The petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.