1972 PLP 326 (SCMR)

WAHEEDUDDIIN AHMAD, J.‑A Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, remanded the matter to the delegate Chief Settlement Commissioner for a fresh decision on the point as to whether Mst. Bashiran respondent No. 2 was the daughter of Mohar Singh whose succession is in dispute. On the evidence produced by the parties, the delegate Chief Settle ment Commissioner, by order dated the 19th June 1968, came to the conclusion that Mst. Bashiran was the daughter of Mohar Singh and was entitled to inherit leis property in dispute. The petitioners challenged this order in Settlement Revision No. 72 of 1968 and a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, by order dated the 14th February 1972, has dismissed the revision petition. In support of the petition, Ch. Muhammad Anwar Buttar, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the finding of the delegate Chief Settlement Commissioner that Mst. Bashiran is the daughter of Mohar Singh is not correct. He has further contended that even if this finding is accepted as correct, Mst. Bashiran respondent No. 2 is only entitled to succeed to 1/2 of the property of Mohar Singh. It is further contended that the petitioners had purchased the property by means of registered sale deed dated the 25th January 1961. The land in dispute was later on cancelled from their names under Martial Law Regulation No. 89 on the 15th October 1961, which was again restored to them on the 13th April 1962. The learned counsel argued that since in the interregnum period they had purchased the land, therefore their title was intact and allotment of the vendors under Martial Law Regulation No. 89 could not be called in question in any Court. None of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners has any force. The question whether Mst. Bashiran is the daughter of Mohar Singh is a question of fact and the High Court was perfectly justified in not interfering with the finding of fact which is based on the evidence. Similarly, the question whether Moti is a reversioner of Mohar Singh is a question of fact. Moti had not made any claim and, therefore, the Settlement authorities were perfectly justified in holding that he had no claim in the property in dispute. The last point that the allotment of the vendors under Martial Law Regulation No. 89 could not be called in question has also no force because the information laid down by the informer was not correct and it was found that the land in dispute had been rightly allotted to Mst. Bashiran as sole heir of Mohar Singh. As a result of this, the entire transaction of allotment to the vendors and the petitioners and their purchasers fell to the ground. There is no merit in the petition which is dismissed. Leave refused.