Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1182 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SULEMAN vs MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1182 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SULEMAN VS MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II), B.O.R. S.19-a---Punjab Land Revenue act (XVII of 1967), Ss.163(2) & 172(2)---Review filing of---Scope and limitation---Revenue authorities, jurisdiction of---Predecessor in interest "S.B" and "R.B." were shown as legal heirs of deceased and first mutation was sanctioned under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) act, 1912 and names of daughters were ignored while making the entries in the mutation---Petitioners filed review petition before assistant Commissioner---Review petition was allowed and petitioners were declared legal heirs and their names were ordered to be entered as legal heirs in the said mutation---Petitioners filed appeal before the additional Commissioner who accepted the appeal---Respondents filed revision petition before Member Board of Revenue which was accepted by Member Board of Revenue---Held, that case in hand, was a case of the correction of the revenue record that at the time of sanctioning of two different mutations of one deceased, different entries of his legal heirs were incorporated in the mutations---Said two mutations were not sanctioned at one time---Mutation which had been challenged was sanctioned in the year 1948, whereas, the other (second) mutation was sanctioned after two years of that mutation---Petitioners predecessor in interest remained alive as per record admittedly for about fifty years after the sanction of both the mutations but they did not challenge the mutations---Where a land was acquired under any scheme of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) act, 1912 or the land was owned by the person and he was sole owner of the property by himself, if on his death the inheritance was devolved and some mutations were sanctioned, there was a specific procedure provided under S. 172 of Punjab land Revenue act, 1967 for its review, if there were some entries made on the basis of some mistake or against the facts---Points of limitation and satisfaction of mutation of entitled predecessor in interest, who remained alive fifty years after the sanction of mutation and predecessor in interest, were not agitated---Said points were very important to be thrashed and the entries could not be thrashed without making the required inquiry which was only within the jurisdiction of Civil Court---Revenue authorities, could not inquire the matter as revenue authorities had been empowered only for the summary trial procedure---Matter agitated by the petitioners that the ladies' predecessor in interest had been deprived from their legal /Shariat right was very important to sort out but it had been pointed out that the parties also had filed their matters before the Civil Court and one of the matters was also pending before the Civil Court which was the proper forum to entertain and decide the grievance of both the parties---Correction of the entries in the revenue record and correction of the mutation after more than fifty years was not prerogative of the revenue authorities especially in the review petition, when the original persons, themselves had not agitated the matter in their life time--- Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1182 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SULEMAN VS MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II), B.O.R. S. 172--- Fraud in sanctioning mutation---Exclusive jurisdiction of Civil Courts---Section 172 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 barred the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities to review any document where there was allegation of fraud or misrepresentation in sanctioning of some mutation. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1182 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SULEMAN VS MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II), B.O.R. S.19-a---Right of inheritance of female---Section 19-a was inserted in the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) act, 1912 ('the act') in 1951 prior to sanction of succession mutations, in the present case, which were sanctioned under section 19 of the act, where only male members were given the right to succeed the inheritance of the deceased---With the insertion of S.19-a in the act the tenancy was to be devolved on the legal heirs in accordance with Muslim Personal Law/Sharia and the male and female, all the members were made entitled to inherit the property of deceased who was having the proprietary rights of the land under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) act, 1912---Constitutional petition was dismissed. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1182 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SULEMAN VS MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II), B.O.R. S. 163(2)---Limitation for review petition---Period of ninety days for making application for review was provided by the Punjab land Revenue Act, 1967---Application filed after expiry of the limitation period could be dismissed on the ground of delay.

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1182 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SULEMAN vs MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II), B — 2023 YLR 1182 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR