2026 PLP 485 (MLD)

Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, J.

Through this petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 12.10.2021, passed by the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of States and Frontier Regions, on the claim of the petitioners.

2. Briefly stated, the facts referred to in the instant petition are that the petitioners are primarily seeking their right of inheritance in the estate left behind by the Nawab of the former State of Bahawalpur. As per the stance of the petitioners they do not claim to be the legal heirs of Nawab Sir Sadiq Muhammad Khan Abbasi V, but assert themselves to be his collaterals, being successors of his predecessor Nawabs.

3. After the promulgation of The Acceding State (Property) Order, 1961, the Federal Government and the Ministry of States and Frontier Regions became the competent authority to adjudicate upon such matters under Section 3 of the 1961 Order. The section provides that where any question arises, directly or indirectly, between persons claiming to be the heirs and successors of the ruler of a State or claiming to succeed to the State, concerning the devolution or distribution of the property of that State or the ruler, such question shall be decided by an order of the Central Government.

4. On the basis of the above law, the matter was referred to the Federal Government pursuant to the directions of this Court. Consequently, the Ministry/Federal Government adjudicated upon the matter and rejected the claim of the petitioners, giving detailed observations, as reflected in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the impugned order: The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to some of the petitions filed before the honourable High Courts and the Supreme Court of Pakistan. In these petitions, it was contested that the claimed inheritance was not based on being legal heirs of Nawab Sir Sadiq Muhammad Khan Abbasi-V, but as his collaterals, being successors of his predecessor Nawabs. He further stated that despite the orders on the earlier petitions, the honourable courts did not debar the petitioners from approaching the relevant forum i.e. Federal Government in the Ministry of States and Frontier Regions under the provisions of the Acceding State (Property) Order, 1961. The learned counsel for petitioners suggested that his clients may be awarded property from other locations belonging to the Abbasi family which were not yet mutated/disturbed to the heirs e.g., Shikargarh/Cholistan properties. As per background of the case, Sir Sadiq Muhammad Khan Abbasi-V, late Ameer of Bahawalpur, through an instrument, acceded to Pakistan on 3-10-1947. This was followed by Bahawalpur Merger Agreement on 17-12-1954. Through the Merger Agreement, the Ameer of Bahawalpur ceded his sovereignty, authority and powers to Pakistan. The Merger Agreement entitled the Ameer of Bahawalpur and his family to allowances and private properties. The Acceding State (Property) Order, 1961 was promulgated on 2-09-1961. Sir Sadiq Muhammad Khan Abbasi-V passed away on 25-5-1966. In 1967, the Federal Government appointed a Commission to make inquiry and submit its recommendations with regard to the devolution and distribution on the private properties left by late Sir Sadiq Muhammad Khan Abbasi-V. The recommendations of the Commission were accepted and given effect through the Devolution and Distribution of Property (Ameer of Bahawalpur Order, 1969 promulgated by the Government of Pakistan on 19-02-1969. The said Order, in terms of its stipulation of 23 beneficiaries i-e. three widows, ten sons and ten daughters, being heirs of Sir Sadiq Muhammad Abbasi-V for devolution and distribution of private property of late Ameer of Bahawalpur, has remained in force.

5. As per the observation of the Federal Government, the matter regarding devolution and distribution of the properties of Nawab Sir Sadiq Muhammad Khan Abbasi-V stood finalized, and pursuant to that decision, the properties were distributed among 23 beneficiaries/legal heirs, for which a Commission had been appointed. However, the functioning of the said Commission presently stands suspended and is under challenge before the Lahore High Court.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Law Officer representing the Federal Government, and have been persuaded to consider the view rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the judgment reported as PLD 1982 SC 367 (Government of Pakistan v. Brig. (R) HH Nawab Muhammad Abbas Khan Abbasi), wherein the Supreme Court concluded the matter concerning opening of succession/legal heirship disputes vis-a-vis the properties of the State in the following manner: The real question, therefore, which arises is as to whether the Central Government had unbridled powers to distribute the property in any manner it thought fit or whether it was bound by any rule in determining the dispute regarding the succession to the private properties of the late Ameer of Bahawalpur. We agree with the High Court that as valuable civil rights of the parties were involved, the decision could not be taken arbitrarily but had to rest on some principle. The rule of decision in the absence of an compulsion to the contrary could, we have no doubt, be only the Muslim Law (Shariat). No such compulsion exists as it has already affirmatively been found that the contention to the effect that under the Merger Agreement the question of succession is to be governed by the law and customs of the State is untenable. The State of Bahawalpur, as we have mentioned already, acceded to the Dominion of Pakistan on 3-10-1947. Shortly, thereafter, the Pakistan Citizenship Act was enacted, on 13th April, 1951 and by the Bahawalpur (Extension Federal Laws) Order, 1953 (Governor-General's Order No. 5 of 1953) its operation was also extended to the State of Bahawalpur and, accordingly, the appellant, as also Respondents Nos. 2 to 23, became citizens of Pakistan. Thereafter, pursuant to the Babawalpur Merger Agreement entered into on 17-12-1954, and the coming into force of the Establishment of West Pakistan Act, 1955, the State of Bahawalpur was absorbed into the Province of West Pakistan. On 31-12-1962, the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat Application) Act, 1962 was enforced which extended to the whole of the Province of West Pakistan, whereby Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) the was to apply in all questions regarding succession, where the parties are Muslims. In fact, the Bahawalpur State had itself adopted in 1951 (1951-a-5-1 N_-)Q J.:; "l-U -9.it9)- Consequently, in deciding how the private property of the late Ameer was to be distributed among the heirs of late Ameer of Bahawalpur, the Muslim Law (Shariat) was to be the rule of decision and ought to have been applied. Indeed, the Central Government, while deciding this dispute, which involved a question pertaining to succession to the private property of the late Ameer was expected to apply the same rule that any ordinary Court of Law would have applied. The Central Govemment was burdened with the onerous duty of deciding this matter only because of the special status of the parties. In view of the high status of considered the contestants it appears that it was appropriate to create a special and exclusive forum to decide their dispute, so as to save the distinguished members of the late Ruler's family from the rigors of a trial before the Ordinary Court of the land. Apart therefrom, the dispute, touching as it did the civil rights of the parties had to be determined in accordance with the law of the land which applied to such matters, viz. Muslim Law (Shariat):

7. It is evident from the above judgment that even collaterals or persons claiming to be legal heirs under Section 3 of the 1961 Order have a right to approach the Federal Government for determination of their entitlement in accordance with Muslim Personal Law. This legal proposition was duly recognized by the Supreme Court by reference to the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, which was extended to the entire Province of West Pakistan and provides that Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) shall apply in all questions regarding succession where the parties are Muslims.

8. Furthermore, the Supreme Court also noted that the State of Bahawalpur had, in 1951, adopted the Qanoon-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Islamia Act, 1951, thereby affirming the applicability of Islamic inheritance law to such cases. Thus, there can be no legal impediment to the petitioners asserting their rights of inheritance under Muslim Personal Law before the Government of Pakistan.

9. The primary question now arises as to what actions are required to be taken by the Government of Pakistan. This Court is of the considered view that the impugned order has failed to adjudicate upon the principal question of the eligibility or entitlement of the petitioners as legal heirs. The petitioners have claimed such entitlement based on their collateral relationship with the late Nawab, and in this regard, they are obligated to establish their genealogical linkage through a properly drawn pedigree chart and supporting evidence.

10. This Court further holds that such intricate questions regarding legal heirship, inheritance, and succession are ordinarily to be adjudicated by a Civil Court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by way of a suit for declaration.

11. It is a well-settled principle of law that questions of inheritance are not defeated by limitation, and no limitation period runs against the assertion of inheritance rights.

12. Keeping in view the above principles and various judgments of the superior Courts, particularly: PLD 1978 (Lahore) 1166 (Khan Abbasi, Ameer of Bahawalpur v. Govt. of Pakistan). PLD 1982 SC 367 (Govt. of Pakistan v. Nawab Muhammad Abbas Khan Abbasi). PLD 1998 SC 1512 (Shahro v. Fatima) PLD 1984 SC 67 (Muhammad Abbas Khan Abbasi Ameer of Bahawalpur v. Govt. of Pakistan). PLD 1985 SC 407 (Abdul Ghafoor v. Muhammad Shafi). 1982 SCMR 991 (Muhammad Abbas Khan Abbasi v. Deputy Land Commissioner, Bahawalpur). 1989 SCMR 1182 (Ghulam Shabir v. Muhammad Sher). 1990 SCMR 1667 (Ismail v. Ghulam Qadir). 1991 SCMR 758 (Fazal Nishan v. Ghulam Qadir). 1991 SCMR 2050 (Sultan Ibrahim v. Muhammad Hayat). 1995 SCMR 868 (Zainab Bibi v. Muhammad Yousaf). 1997 SCMR 1081 (Anwar Bibi v. Raja). 1997 SCMR 1352 (Ghulam Nabi v. Faqir Muhammad), 1998 SCMR 996 (Namdara v. Sahibzada). 2003 SCMR 362 (Mst. Ghulam Janat v. Ghulam Janat). 2008 SCMR 905 (Muhammad Anwar v. Khuda Yar). 2019 SCMR 417 (Fazeelat Agha v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Member, Punjab Lahore). 2020 SCMR 346 (Faqir Ahmed Khan (Deceased) v. Riaz Ahmad). And the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, the Federal Government is bound to ensure proper adjudication of the claims, while considering the Islamic law of inheritance and its applicability.

13. Though the 1961 Order is applicable to such matters and the Federal Government (formerly the Central Government) is the sole authority to adjudicate upon these questions, it must discharge its duty by recording the statements of the petitioners and considering all relevant material and confronting the claimants/legal heirs already declared.

14. If, upon evaluation, it is found that the petitioners are collaterals of the late Amir and entitled to share in the estate under Islamic inheritance law, then a reasoned and detailed order must be passed after duly determining their status on the basis of available evidence and pedigree.

15. The impugned order does not refer to any such evaluation or determination, nor does it conclusively establish that the petitioners are excluded from inheritance. In the absence of such findings, no final adjudication could be made.

16. This Court is guided by the principles of remand as enunciated in: 2007 SCMR 1867 (Muhammad Mukhtar and others v. Muhammad Sharif). 2010 SCMR 1119 (Mst. Shahida Zareen v. Iqrar Ahmed Siddiqui). 1997 SCMR 524 (Muhammad Dervaish Al-Gilani v. Muhammad Sharif). Which provide that where factual controversies exist and complete justice cannot be done without leading evidence, the matter should be remanded to the competent authority for a fresh decision after recording evidence.

17. In view of above discussion, instant writ petition is ALLOWED. The impugned order dated 12.10.2021, passed by the Federal Government is hereby SET-ASIDE, and the matter is remanded to the Federal Government with the direction to proceed in accordance with law. It is expected that the Federal Government will fix a schedule for the recording of statements of the petitioners and, upon proof of the their collateral relationship with the late Amir of Bahawalpur and visible rights in the estate, adjudicate upon the matter accordingly within one year under intimation to this Court. JK/153/Isl. Petition allowed.