P L D 1964 W (PLP)

(a) Appeal‑

Time‑barred‑Delay of every day to be explained. (b) Gift‑

Land allotted to widow under Rehabilitation Resettle ment Scheme‑Gift of such property that of grant. Umardraz Ali v. Khurshid Ali P L D 1960 Lah. 834 and Mst. Basso v. Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land) P L D 1963 S C 347 rel. This order will dispose of the three Revision Petitions Nos. 1497 and 1498 of 1962‑63 and the cross Revision No. 264 of 1963‑

64. The facts briefly are as follows. Hamidun Nisa widow of Muhammad Haneef was in pos session of 32 acres of land situated in villages Chaung Panj grain and Gajju Natta situated in Lahore district. This land was allotted to her under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme in satisfaction of her claim. She executed two registered deeds of gift on 29‑12‑1960 and 27‑5‑1960 in respect of her property in the two villages in favour of the petitioner Muhammad Ramzan, who is her brother's son; and in accordance with these registered deeds possession was transferred to him. Two mutations Nos. 1660 and 464 in respect of the two villages were entered and decided by the Assistant Collector in favour of Muhammad Ramzan. The widow herself died sometime later viz.; on 20th August 1961. Muhammad Baqar who claimed to be a collateral of Muhammad Hanif filed two time‑barred appeals, which were accepted on the short ground that Hamidun Nisa had only a life interest in the property and could not gift more than 1/4th of her due share. Muhammad Ramzan's second appeal was dismissed by the Addi tional Commissioner. Two revisions have been filed by him and a cross revision by Muhammad Baqar. The latter's case is that the widow was not competent to transfer even 1/4th of her share as she had only a life interest in the property and no more. The main points taken in the revision petition of Muhammad Ramzan are three; Firstly, that the Collector should not have admitted these time‑barred appeals as there was no justification for condoning any delay particularly when Muhammad Baqar had not adduced any reasons to that effect. Secondly, that Hamidun Nisa was a full owner of the property as given in the revenue records. Thirdly that even if she had a life interest in the estate in India the present allotment made to her under the Rehabilita tion Settlement Scheme is not devolution of the estate in India, but a grant made to her by the Rehabilitation Authorities. Thus she was a full owner and competent to gift away the entire pro perty in her possession. There is no doubt that the appeals presented to the Collector were time‑barred and it is so stated by the Collector himself, and the point of limitation raised before the Collector and also before the learned Additional Commissioner. The latter has not touch ed on it in his order and the Collector merely observed that "delay in filing appeals in such cases involving rights and title is condon able in the interest of justice". That is a wrong application of the law of limitation, which clearly lays down that every day of the delay has to be explained. No explanation whatsoever of the delay was forthcoming or has even now been given on behalf of Muhammad Baqar. In any case Revenue Officers are not Courts of equity as they do not have any inherent powers which the Civil Courts have under the provisions of a section 151, C. P. C. and they have merely to apply the Land Revenue Act and other relevant law without importing their personal ideas of right andl wrong and justice and equity. Besides there was no good reason for condonation without cause as another remedy was open to Muhammad Baqar namely to go to a Civil Court. In case he had no forum available to him, the Revenue Officer might have other con sidered condonation but even then it would have to be in accord ance with the law of limitation as provided under section 153 of the Land Revenue Act. The second and third points have been considered by the officers below and the ground that Hamidun Nisa had in the Court fn India accepted the position that she had a life interest in the property left to her by her husband has no force. She has not gifted away the property left by her husband in India but a grant has been made to her under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme and it is this grant which she has gifted away in accordance with the view expressed by the Lahore High Court in Umardraz Ali v. Khurshid Ali (P L D 1960 Lah. 834) and the Supreme Court Mst. Basso v. Rehabilita tion Commissioner (Land) (P L D 1963 S C 347). As a result of the above discussion T would accept the two Revision Petitions Nos. 1497 and 1498, set aside the order passed by the officers below and direct that the two mutations be sanctioned in favour of Muhammad Ramzan, the donee. The cross revision preferred by Muhammad Baqar stands dismissed. K. M. A. Petition accepted.