1990 PLP 1994 (CLC)

‑‑‑S.2‑‑‑Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme 1956, para. 4‑A(ix)‑‑‑Memo. No.1740/2549‑78, dated 21‑11‑1978‑‑‑Temporary allotment for subsistence‑‑ Land in question was temporarily allotted for subsistence purposes to petitioner and her deceased husband‑‑‑Government subsequently while deciding to give proprietary rights to Jammu and Kashmir refugees directed that proprietary rights of temporarily alloited land be granted in the names of all members of family indicated in the allotment chit‑‑‑Petitioner being allottee and member of the family was thus entitled to get one‑half of the landed property‑‑‑Out of remaining half of her husband who had died petitioner as widow of deceased was entitled to 1/8th share thus bringing her share to 9/16th of the property‑‑ Deceased's daughter was entitled to 4/16th share of the whole property while his Collaterals were entitled to 3/16th of the property‑‑‑Order of Assistant Collector specifying such shares was in accordance with law‑‑‑Decisions of Collector and Additional Commissioner were set aside and that of Assistant Collector was restored. Manzoor Hussain Chaudhry for Petitioner. Muhammad lqbal Akhtar for Respondents Nos. 1 to 1'

2. Date of hearing: 24th December, 1989. Brief facts of the case are that Hakam Din refugee from J & K died on '17‑11‑1975. His inheritance Mutations Nos. 5357 and 5358 were sanctioned on 18‑Z‑1979 in favour of Dil Bibi widow petitioner and Mst. Shamim Akhtar daughter. The predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents filed an application to the District Collector for the review of above said mutations on the ground that according to Shariat Act, Mst. Dil Bibi widow was entitled to 1/8th share and her daughter to 7/16th share and the remaining will go to the collaterals‑respondents. The Collector vide his order dated 2‑4‑1985 allowed the review of mutations on the ground that respective shares of the parties were not correctly recorded. On remand, Tehsildar/A.C. I, Chakwal sanctioned fresh Mutations Nos. 5817 and 5918 on 19‑10‑1985 in favour of Dil Bibi and others wherein 9/16th share was given to Dil Bibi 1/4th i.e., 4/16th to Shamim Akhtar daughter and 3/16th to the collaterals‑‑respondents. That order was assailed by the respondents on the plea that Revenue Officer has erred in holding that 1/2 of the property was allotted to Dil Bibi. She is only entitled to 1/8th share from the inheritance of Hakam Din deceased being his widow and the rest would go to other legal heirs according to Shariat Law. Collector, Chakwal vide his order dated 2‑7‑1986 set aside the order of Revenue Officer dated 19‑10‑1985 and remanded the case for fresh decision. The petitioner challenged that order before the Additional Commissioner who vide his order dated 20‑1‑1987 dismissed the same. Hence this revision petition.

2. I have heard the parties and have examined the record of the case. A perusal of the record reveals that disputed land was temporarily allotted for subsistence purposes to Hakam Din (Head of the family), Dil Bibi and Muhammad Sharif vide Ration Card No. 48349 being J & K refugees, in village Mureed, Thesil Chakwal. The names of predecessors‑in‑interest of the contesting respondents were not included in Fard Taqsim, therefore, they had no claim to the land allotted to Hakam Din etc. Later on, Muhammad Sharif died in his childhood, so the names of Hakam Din and Dil Bibi, husband and wife were left behind in the allotment chit. Subsequently Govermnent while deciding to give proprietary rights to the J & K refugees, vide memo. No. 1740/2549‑78, dated 21‑11‑1978, had directed that proprietary rights of the temporarily allotted land may be granted in the names of all the members of family indicated in the allotment chit. Icy view of this proposition, it is crystal clear that Dil Bibi petitioner being allottee and member of family was entitled to get one‑half of the landed property. Out of remaining one‑half i.e., the share of Hakam Din, according to Shariat Law she was entitled to get 1/8th share as widow of Hakan Din deceased and remaining land of Hakam Din deceased will go to other heirs. The order of A.C. I/Tehsildar dated 19‑10‑1985 was in accordance with law. The Collector while again remanding the case had acted erroneously. The Additional Commissioner had also ignored the directions contained, in the memo, narrated above. As such the impugned order, has no legs to stand upon. Under these circumstances, the revision petition is accepted. A.A./360/R Petition accepted