1973 PLP 221 (SCMR)

SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑Mst. Janatun Nisa, sister of peti tioner Mst. Najabun Nisa had owned agricultural lands in India as widow of one Abdul Haleem. On migration she was allotted evacuee lands in two separate villages, Kadhanwala and Mandi Bahauddin, in Tehsll Phatia, District Gujrat, against her verified claim. The lands were, thereafter, confirmed in her name. She died on the 12th January 1963. Mutation of inheritance No. 3051 pertaining to the lands in village Kadhanwala was sanctioned on the 17th April 1967, by the Assistant Commissioner. In this mutation Mst. Janatun Nisa was treated as a limited owner and the lands were distributed among several heirs of the last male owner, Abdul Haleem (deceased). The petitioner claimed that Mst. Janatun Nisa was a full owner and the petitioner was her sole heir, and she, accordingly, preferred an appeal before the Collector which was dismissed. Her second appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), however, succeeded, and Mst. Janatun Nisa was held to be full owner, and the petitioner to be her sole heir. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and some others claimed to be collaterals of the deceased husband of Mst. Janatun Nisa, who had died in India in the year 1920. They went up in revision before the Member, Board of Revenue, but failed. As regards the lands in village Mandi Bghauddin mutation of inheritance bearing No. 6949 was sanctioned on the 22nd May 1969, whereby Mst. Janatun Nisa was treated as full owner, and the petitioner was held to be her sole heir. This mutation was not challenged in appeal or revision by the said respondents and it attained finality. In 1971, however, the said respondents approached the High Court on a Constitution petition (Writ Petition No. 673 of 1971.) under Article 98 of the 1962‑Constitution, and for the first time challenged the orders of the Additional Commissioner and the Member, Board of Revenue, dated the 2nd December 1968, and the 30th November 1969, respectively. These impugned orders dealt with Mutation No. 3051 pertaining to lands in village Kadhanwala only. In the Constitution Petition No. 673 of 1971, however, the respondents also sought to challenge Mutation No. 6949 pertaining to the lands in village Mandi Bahauddin. The learned Chief Justice of the High Court relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Additional Settlement Com missioner (Lands), Sargodha v. Muhammad Shafi and others (PLD1971SC791) and held that Mst. Janatun Nisa's interest in the lands confirmed. to her remained as that of a limited owner. The Constitution petition was accordingly allowed and the order of the Assistank4 Commissioner dated the 17th April 1967, passed in Mutation? No. 3051 was restored. We think that the learned Chief Justice has taken a correct view. Relying on the case of Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) v. Muhammad Shafi and others, it has been contended that the Settlement Authorities were not entitled to reopen the order of mutation (Mutation No. 6949) against which no appeal or revision had been filed and which thus became final. The short answer to this contention is that the High Court has not said anything regarding this mutation and the matter should rest there. It is hardly necessary for us to observe that this mutation was never the subject‑matter of challenge either in appeal or revision and thus could not be challenged for the first time in the High Court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. The next contention argued on behalf of the petitioner is that the Revenue Authorities up to the rank of Additional Commis sioner have been delegated the powers of the Settlement Authori ties and they, therefore, had the jurisdiction to decide the mutations. The High Court held that the mutation proceedings were before the Revenue Authorities and not before the Rehabilitation Authorities and as such were subject to examination by the High Court. The High Court was well within its jurisdiction to take the view it has taken and we are unable to find any fault with it. No question of law of general or public importance is involved. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused.