P L D (Rev (PLP)

ARHTER HUSSAIN, F. C.--‑This is a revision petition against the order of the Commissioner, Rawalpindi division, dated 13th February 1953, by which he accepted the appeal of the respon dent Mst. Maqbool Jan and reversing the order of the Collector Rawalpindi dated 11th August 1953 restored that of the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade dated 6th April 1953. The facts briefly are that on the death of Abdul Aziz on 4th November 1951 a mutation of inheritance was sanctioned on 6th April 1952 in favour of his widow Mst Maqbool Jan respondent. The decision of the Assistant Collector was based tan the so‑called deed of gift dated 9th April 1939 by which the deceased had given land to Mst Maqbool Jan in lieu of dower. This deed is not on the file. In appeal by the petitioner Lal Din, nephew of the deceased, the Collector found that from the wordings of the deed it was not clear whether it was a will or a deed of transfer; if it was a will it could not be made in favour of the heir under the Shariat Law without the consent of the petitioner‑appellant and if it was a transfer it should have been registered. As the deed was not regis tered it could not be taken into evidence. He, therefore accepted she appeal of Lal Din and directed that the mutation should be sanctioned as it in favour of Mst. Maqbool Jan and th in favour of Lal Din petitioner. Mst. Maqbool Jan went up in second appeal before the Com missioner who took the contrary view and held that as in the document the deceased had admitted having transferred the posses ion of the land in favour of his wife Mst. Maqbool Jan in lieu of lower, the deed having been acted upon did not require registr ation and the Revenue Officer was bound to sanction the mutation n favour of Mst. Maqbool Jan on the basis of the deed. He, therefore, accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the Collector and restored that of the Assistant Collector. The petitioner in his grounds of revision has alleged that there had been no transfer of possession as will be seen from he revenue records and the decision of the mutation in favour of a respondent was contrary to principles of law. The mutation was of inheritance and the mutation officer should not have taken into consideration any deed of gift executed in 1939 and for which no separate mutation had been entered if this was a will, then, as pointed out by the Collector, it was void not having been made with the consent of the petitioner. In mutations of inheritance the Revenue Officers should confine a themselves to the point as to who is the' legal heir of the deceased and need not go into the question of whether any one else has a right in the property of the deceased. This aspect of the case appears to have been overlooked by the learned Commissioner. I accept the revision petition, set aside the order of the learned Commissioner dated 13th February 1953 and restore the order of the Collector dated 11th August 1952. Announced. A. H. Petition accepted.