1978 PLP 295 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AKRAM, ACTG, C. J.‑This is a petition for special leave from the judgment dated 30th of June 1976 delivered by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court at Lahore whereby he accepted the Writ Petition No. 243‑R of 1968 filed by the respondent No. I herein against the petitioners and respondents Nos. 2 and

3. In brief the relevant facts are these. Mst. Yatim Bibi, respondent No. 1, as married to one Mebdi Hussain in District Kangra (India). He died in the year 1938 and his estate was stated to have devolved upon her as his widow under the customary‑law. She migrated to Pakistan in disturbances and settled in village Trigri, District Gujranwala year 1952, the mutation of inheritance for the allotted land a right‑holder was attested, to her exclusion by the Assistant Second Grade, in favour of the reversioners of Mehdi Hussain deceased now represented by the petitioners. She went tip in appeal against the order which was however, dismissed by the Collector who refused to interfere in these proceedings of summary nature and observed that the parties may if so advised approach the civil Court for relief. The order was affirmed in revision rejected by the Commissioner. Her second revision against the order was also dismissed by a learned Member of the Board of Revenue with the remark that the appeal against the order of the mutation of inheritance in such a case was competent before the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner and the Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. Nonetheless the respondent filed a suit against the petitioners which wan however, dismissed on the 3rd of January 1957. But the decree was reversed on appeal accepted in her favour by the Senior Civil Judge, Gujranwala on the 22nd of February 1958. The petitioner therefore, went up in regular second appeal which was accepted by the High Court on the 21st of February 1968, on the short ground that the dispute relating to the property abandoned in India was not competent before the civil Court in Pakistan. Respondent No. 1 filed a petition for special leave to appeal in the Supreme Court against the judgment. This Court then granted the requisite leave to appeal to her in the case. It appears that during the pendency of those proceedings the respondent also filed the Writ. Petition No. 243‑R of 1968 challenging the validity of the impugned orders passed on the mutation in question in favour of the petitioners herein. During the pendency of this writ petition in the Lahore High Court, the respondent on the 11th of March 1975 withdrew her appeal pending in this Court. Eventually, on the 30th of June 1976, the High Court accepted her writ petition and quashed the impugned orders passed against her on the mutation concerning the state of Mehdi Hussain deceased. In coming to this conclusion the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court observed that according to the entries in the special jamabandi Mst. Yatim Bibi respondent was entered as the owner of the land abandoned in India. In accordance with the provisions contained in paragraph 29 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme she as a right‑holder was entitled to the property and that the mutation in question was not attested in accordance with the law in favour of the petitioners and was therefore, liable to be quashed. He therefore, accepted the writ petition filed by the respondent against the petitioners. Hence this petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is not denied before us that according to the entries in the special jamabandi received from India the respondent ay a right‑holder was entitled to the allotment and con firmation of the land in her name in Pakistan in accordance with the provisions contained in para. 29 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme and the question of sanction of by mutation of succession did not arise at that stage. As such paragraph 46 of the Scheme was of no assistance to the petitioners and the impugned judgment thus delivered by the learned Single Judge is unexcep tionable. He has also found that the respondent had been vigilantly pursuing the matter throughout and that there was nothing to show that she was negligent or had ever acquiesced or slept over her rights. In this view of the matter the High Court was justified in repelling the contention to the effect that the writ petition filed by the respondent suffered from laches or that her conduct in any way disentitled her to the relief. We therefore, see no force, in this petition which is rejected. Petition rejected.