Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Mst. KAMLA KHATOON VS Respondent: THE BOARD OF REVENUE, SIND AT HYDERABAD
1988 M L D 289
1988 M L D 289
[Karachi]
Before Ajmal Mian and Fakhruddin H. Shaikh, JJ
Mst. KAMLA KHATOON‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE BOARD OF REVENUE, SIND AT HYDERABAD through Deputy Secretary, Land Utilisation and another‑‑Respondents
Constitutional Petition No. 364 of 1975, heard on 12th January, 1983.
West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 164‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Surrender of excess land by predecessor of parties with option to purchase‑‑Petitioner's predecessor dying before making payment of price of land ‑Dispute as to legal heirs of deceased‑‑Petitioner claiming to be one of legal heirs‑‑Board of Revenue treating respondent/ as the only legal heir receiving price of excess land from him and getting mutation effected m his name without notice to petitioner‑‑Effect‑‑Nothing having been brought on record to indicate that in fact any notice was issued to petitioner, High Court remanded case to Board of Revenue with direction to decide the question as to whether respondent was legal heir or deceased in addition to petitioner, after issuing notice to petitioner as well as to respondent.
Malik Muhammad Saeed for Petitioner.
Muhammad Ibrahim, A.A.‑G., for Respondent No. 1.
Respondent No. 2 in person.
Date of hearing: 12th January, 1983.
JUDGMENT
AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑In this petition the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:‑‑
"(a) That the order dated the 21st October 1974 passed by the Respondent No. 1 is without lawful authority and is of no legal effect.
(b) Full cost of the petition and
(c) Any other relief which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper may also be granted in the matter."
The relevant facts leading to the filing of above petition are that the petitioner's husband late Hakim Muhammad Samiullah Khan was allotted agricultural lands, inter alia, mentioned in para 1 of the petition. It further seems that after the promulgation of Martial Law Regulation 89, certain land had become excess land, and therefore, he had to surrender the same with the option to purchase. It further seems that he exercised the option to purchase the said land but before the price could be paid and the matter could be finalised, he expired in 1972. Respondent No. 1 issued a letter dated 21‑10‑1974 addressed to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad, copy whereof was endorsed to the petitioner as well as to the Respondent No. 2, who claimed to be only the main legal heir of the deceased. It also seems that the petitioner has disputed Respondent No. 2's claim being cane of the legal heirs of deceased. However, further seems that Respondent No. 2 paid the price for the surrendered land got mutation effected in his name. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above action on the part of Respondent No. 2 has riled the present petition.
2. In support of the above petition Mr. Malik Muhammad Saeed, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the question, as to whether Respondent No. 2 i.e., Muhamoodur Rehman son of Muhammad Younus Khan was in fact a legal heir of the deceased or not could not have been decided by the Revenue Authorities without giving a notice to the petitioner. Nothing has been brought on record to indicate that in fact any notice to the petitioner was given. In this view of the matter, we would remand the case to Respondent No. 1 with the direction to decide the question as to whether Respondent No 2 Mahmoodur Rehman is legal heir of the deceased Hakim Muhammad Samiullah Khan, in addition o the petitioner, after notice to the petitioner as well as to Muhamoodur Rehman We would also direct that till the above question is decided, no further action may be taken in respect of the lands in dispute by the Revenue Authorities. There will be no order as to cost. A.A./K‑106/K
Case remanded.