P L D (Rev (PLP)

SAIDULLAH KHAN, F. C.‑This is a revision petition filed by Mst. Janat Bibi and Mst. Nek Bakhat through Mehdi Khan against the order dated the 28th June, 1950, of the Commis sioner, Rawalpindi Division, by which he rejected the plea of the petitioners on the score . that the issues raised by the petitioners had a complexion of a civil nature and as such were to be disposed of by Civil Court of competent jurisdic tion. It is against this order that Mst. Janat Bibi and Mst. Nek Bakhat have filed this revision petition. All the four respondents, namely, Mehr Khan, Ghulam Haider, Ali Haider and Mst. Gohran, in spite of service, are absent ; hence ex‑parte against them. The facts of the case briefly stated are that one Nawab Khan, a landowner of village Sidhar of Chakwal Tahsil in the Jhelum District died sometimes before 31st January, 1936, leaving no male issue but two daughters, now the petitioners (Mst. Janat Bibi and Mst. Nek Bakhat), from his first wife and no issue from his second wife, Mst. Gohran, now one of the respondents. On the death of Nawab Khan a mutation No. 1289, dated the 27th May, 1936, was drawn .up and sanctioned in favour of Mst. Ghoran, the second wife of Nawab Khan. Twelve years later i. e., .in March 1948 two mutations Nos. 425 and 426 dated the 11th March, 1948, the former relating to an oral sale and the latter by way of gift, were drawn up at the instance of Mst. Gohran and both were finally sanctioned on the 18th May, 1948. According to mutation No. 425 dated the 18th May, 1948, Mst. Gohran sold 8 kanals and 5 marlas of land to Ghulam Haider and Ali Haider sons of her sister through an oral transaction while by muta tion No. 426 dated the 18th May, 1948. She transferred through gift 972 kanal s and 3 marlas of land in favour of her brother's son, Mehr Khan, respondent, on the basis of a will dated the 3rd November, 1935, and transferred possession thereof to the donee. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector before the Collector who refused to interfere on the ground that the issues raised by the petitioners relating to the validity of the will and the competency of the donor and seller of the estate in dispute received from her deceased husband, Nawab Khan, were matters of a civil nature and. as such not within the competency of a revenue officer. The ineffective approach of the petitioners to the Commis sioner, Rawalpindi Division resulted in the institution of the present revision petition. The counsel for the petitioners present and heard. It may be pointed out at the outset that none of the‑officers down below seems to have appreciated the facts of this case in so far that Mst. Gohran wife of Nawab Khan, deceased, had a limited interest i. e., life interest, in the estate thus received from her husband and could not, with any justification what soever, permanently transfer a part or the whole of the estate thus received for Nawab Khan in the from and manner indicated in the two mutations referred to above vii, mutations Nos. 425 and 426 dated the 18th May, 1948, the one relating to the oral sale and the other to a gift in favour of the respon dent vide paragraph 7'15, Chapter 7, of the Punjab Land Records Manual. Again, it is apparent from the subsequent conduct of Mst. Gohran that the alienations in both the cases were with the object of depriving the lawful and legitimate claimants of the estate at a time when the West Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1948 had been passed in the middle of March, 1948, whereby no such alienations could be effected except within the terms and conditions laid down therein. This tendency on the part of the owner clearly amounts to flagrant abuse of the powers vested in a landlord for the transfer of a landed property and should be checked effectively. As regards the validity or otherwise of the will referred to in mutation No, 426 dated the 18th May 1948, a reference is invited to Para, 7'15 Chapter 7 of the Punjab Land Records Manual which is specific on the point and action should have been taken accordingly. In view of the aforesaid observations I feel no hesitation in remanding this case to the Collector, Jhelum, with a direction that he should, after affording an opportunity to the parties of hearing them, dispose it of afresh consistent with law. Inform parties accor dingly. A. H. Case remanded.