1980 PLP 559 (SCMR)

Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent: Date of hearing ; 24th November 1979, SHAFI‑UR‑REHMAN, J.‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the Constitutional petition filed by him.

2. By Mtation No. 99 in Chak No. 108/15‑L, Tehsil Khanewal, District, Multan, the petitioner inherited the estate of the refugee right holder Mazharul Hussain as his only son. Allotment of land in lieu of the verified claim of Mazharul Hussain followed. There was subse quently an application by Sultanul Islam who has since died claiming to be son of a daughter of this Mazharul Hussain, He challenged the entitlement of the petitioner to inherit the property of the refugee right‑holder. An inquiry into the matter was ordered which took place and led to the first round of litigation concluding with the decision of the Lahore High Court in W. P. No. 620‑11/63 decided on 14‑10‑1965, whereby the Rehabilitation Authorities were required to re‑examine the matter. Ch, Ali Ahmad, who has described himself as Rehabilitation Commissioner West Pakistan, after hearing the parties, set aside the mutation referred to and remanded the case to the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner concerned for passing a fresh order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard to all concerned. The petitioner instituted a Constitutional petition challenging this order which was dismissed for the reason that the question of facts required decision and this could be done only after proper inquiry as was ordered to take place and which had not till then taken place.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the peti tioner was the adopted son of Mazharul Hussain, that there was a will in his favour, that he had also subsequently got a succession certificate in respect of the estate of. Mazharul Hussain and in the background of such material he could not be prevented from inheriting the estate of Mazharul Hussain and on that account the mutation was correctly attested.

4. We would not make any comment on the merits of the entitle ment of the petitioner for it would be premature and may also prejudice the inquiry that is to follow. . Suffice it to say that under the mutation for which protection is sought the petitioner was taken to be the son of the deceased refugee right‑holder and this fact is admittedly not correct. Entitlement on the basis of adoption or will has an altogether different, connotation than inheritance as the son of a refugee right‑holder. On that ground alone the mutation required reconsideration and rectifica tion. In the background of the complaint filed by the predecessor‑in- interest of the respondents such an inquiry has been ordered to be undertaken in presence of both the parties. There can possibly be no objection to such an inquiry and determination of entitlement of the parties. There is illegality of perversity such, as may call for inter ference by this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.