2025 C L C 1800
[Balochistan]
Before Muhammad Ejaz Swati, CJ and Muhammad Aamir Nawaz Rana, J
Malik MUHAMMAD NASEEM KHAN (Now late through legal herirs) and 2 others ---
Petitioners
Versus
Mst. BIBI ZAHRA and 4 others ---Respondents
C.P. No. 287 of 2024, decided on 26th May, 2025.
Balochistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967) ---
----Ss. 45 & 172---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Record of Rights, entries in ---Inclusion of name of co- sharer ---Rights of women folk---Petitioners
assailed mutation attested in favour of respondent, who was their real sister ---Plea raised by
petitioners was that their predecessor -in-interest, in his lifetime, had gifted part of properties
in dispute in favour of his sons ---Validity ---If respondent / sister had no share in gifted
property, then why petitioners, in year 2008, alleged that they had given share to her in shape
of cash against agreement dated 30 -06-2008--- Agreement in question was neither registered
nor consideration amount as alleged by petitioners was mentioned in the agreement and such agreement was otherwise void ---High Court declined to interfere in mutation attested in
favour of respondent ---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Mst. Parveen (Deceased) through LRs. v. Muhammad Pervaiz and others 2022 SCMR
64 rel.
Bahlol Khan Kasi for Petitioners.
Aurangzaib Khan Kakar for Respondent No. 1.
Zahoor Ahmed Baloch, Additional Advocate General for Respondents Nos. 2 to 5.
Date of hearing: 7th May, 2025.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD AAMIR NAWAZ RANA, J ---The petitioners have thrown
challenge to the impugned orders dated 15.12.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner/
Collector, Quetta ("respondent No. 2"), 06.02.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Quetta Division ("respondent No. 4") and 10.08.2023 passed by the learned Senior Member Board of Revenue Balochistan, Quetta ("respondent No. 5"), and have stated that the Mutation Entry Nos. 43, 252, 1213 and 1008 of their ancestral properties, situated at Mahal and Mouza Nauhsar, Tehsil Saddar, District Quetta have erroneously been mutated in favor of Mst. Bibi Zahra ("respondent No. 1"). The petitioners have prayed for the following relief:
"It is therefore respectfully prayed that keeping in view of the above mentioned grounds and facts of this Constitution Petition, the impugned orders dated 15.12.2020, 06.02.2023 and 10.08.2023 passed by the respondents Nos. 2, 4 and 5, may kindly be set-aside by cancelling/ reversing the mutation entries numbers 43, 252, 1213 and
1008, situated at Mahal and Mouza Nosar, Tehsil Saddar, District Quetta, being without jurisdiction, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play".
2. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.1 filed an application before
respondent No.2 with the averments that her brothers have denied her shariah shares from the ancestral properties falling under the following Mahals (hereinafter the "properties in dispute"), left by their predecessor namely Malik Sher Muhammad (late) and produced the Sharai fatwa in this behalf:
a. Mahal Shara Killa
b. Mahal Karez Khaliq Dad
c. Mahal Karez Baha- ud-Din
d. Mahal Karez Shams -ud-Din
e. Mahal Viala Nauhsar
Mouza Nauhsar, Tappa Nauhsar, Tehsil Saddar, District Quetta.
3. Respondent No.2 directed the Tehsildar Saddar, Quetta ("respondent No. 3") to
procure the record of the properties in dispute. In the meanwhile, predecessor of petitioner
Nos.1 -A to 1 -F i.e. Malik Muhammad Naseem Khan (late) along with petitioner Nos.2 and 3
filed a rejoinder along with copy of agreement dated 30.06.2008 before respondent No.3 and
averred that the due share of respondent No.1 had already been given to her in the form of
cash in the year 2008. In rebuttal, respondent No.1 filed reply before respondent No.2 and refuted the contentions of petitioners by stating that she had been renounced of her due shares and had been given only Rs.10,00,000/ - (Rupees One Million) as her due share.
4. Respondent No.3 submitted his report dated 11.08.2020 along with the record of
Mutation Entry Nos.43, 252, 1213 and 1008 of the properties in dispute, situated at Mahal and Mouza Nauhsar, Tehsil Saddar, District Quetta before respondent No.2. After scrutinizing the record and going through the contents of the report, respondent No.2 directed the respondent No.3 for making the entry in record of the properties in dispute in favor of respondent No.1 as per her due share under Sections 172 and 45 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 vide impugned order dated 15.12.2020.
5. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed Appeal No.22- LRA/2020 under Section 161 of
West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 before respondent No.4, whereby the respondent No.4 after hearing the arguments of the parties and perusing the available record, dismissed the appeal vide impugned order dated 06.02.2023 with the directions that the appeal filed by
the petitioners is hit by limitation and the application filed by the petitioners for condonation
of delay is not justified.
6. Being highly aggrieved from the impugned orders dated 15.12.2020 and 06.02.2023
passed by respondents Nos. 2 and 4 respectively, the petitioners filed Revision Petition
No.19/2023/SMBR before the respondent No.5, whereby respondent No.5, after hearing the
arguments of the parties and perusing the appended record, upheld the orders of the fora
below and dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the petitioners vide impugned order dated
10.08.2023.
Arguments heard. Relevant record perused.
7. The record transpires that the respondent No.1 filed an application before the
respondent No.2 for inclusion of her name in the properties in dispute left by her father Malik Sher Muhammad (late). The application was decided by the respondent No.2 vide impugned order dated 15.12.2020 and the name of respondent No.1 was directed to be included in the revenue record of the properties in dispute left by Malik Sher Muhammad (late).
8. The petitioners assailed the impugned order dated 15.12.2020 passed by respondent
No.2 before the respondent No.4 and after hearing the parties, the respondent No.4 maintained the order of the respondent No.2 vide impugned order dated 06.02.2023. It is relevant to mention here that during the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioners filed an application dated 17.03.2021 before the respondent No. 3, which is reproduced herein below:
9. It is the case of the petitioners that their predecessor in interest namely Malik Sher
Muhammad (late), in his lifetime, on 14.03.1977, had gifted part of the properties in dispute in favor of his sons, so here the question arises that if respondent No.1 had no share in the gifted property, then why the petitioners in the year 2008, allege that they had given the share of respondent No.1 to her in the shape of cash (as mentioned in the afore -mentioned
reply). Much emphasis had been laid by the petitioner s upon the alleged agreement dated
30.06.2008. The perusal of the alleged agreement dated 30.06.2008 reflects that neither the same was registered, nor the consideration amount, as alleged by the petitioners i.e.
Rs.10,00,000/ - (Rupees One Million), was mentioned, so for all intents and purposes, the
said agreement even otherwise is void.
10. Apart from the above mentioned properties in dispute which the petitioners have
alleged that their predecessor namely Malik Sher Muhammad (late) had gifted in his lifetime,
another fact which speaks volumes about the conduct of the petitioners with regard to the remaining properties of Malik Sher Muhammad (late), as mutations of inheritance were carried out allegedly in the years 1999, 2014 and 2019 through Mutation Entry Nos.887, 525 and 110, respectively, but the predecessor of petitioner Nos.1- A to 1 -F i.e. Malik Muhammad
Naseem Khan (late) along with petitioner Nos.2 and 3 concealed the name of respondent No.1 i.e. their sister in the said mutation entries. In case the referred petitioners had given the share of respondent No.1 to her in the shape of cash, according to law, they should have carried out first the legal mutation of the properties in dispute in favor of all the legal heirs of Malik Sher Muhammad (late) by including the name of respondent No.1, but it has not been the case, so the mala fide of the petitioners in the referred transactions is proven.
11. This Court in Constitution Petition No.09/2021, while taking note of this alarming
situation prevailing in the province of Balochistan whereby the womenfolk are deprived of their legal/Shariah shares, had issued the following directions:
In view of above discussion, the petition in hand is accepted with directions to the official respondents in the following terms:
I. The rights of women are being protected by the Holy Quran, which cannot be denied, thus, they are entitled to be given their/her right from the legacy of their/her deceased predecessor.
II. No mutation process of inheritance be carried out without transferring the property firstly in the name of all shareholders including female(s) and any property being transfer/mutated by concealing or excluding the name(s) of female(s) shareholder(s), the entire process would be treated as null and void, and liable to be reversed without even approaching the court of civil jurisdiction.
III. No female shareholder can be deprived from her right on basis of relinquishment/gift deed, bridal gift, maintenance allowance, payment of some cash for any erroneous consideration, force, or for any other means, whatsoever high it may be, other than right of inheritance in the legacy/property of her/their deceased predecessor. In case of any such reason stated hereinabove or leading to deprivation of female shareholder from her right of inheritances, the entire process would stand null and void.
IV. No Process of settlement is to be carried out anywhere in the province, unless it is assured that the name of female shareholders are provided and are included in the process, and in case, there is no female in the family, the Revenue Authorities must specifically mention the relevant details in this behalf .
V. The Secretary/Senior Member Board of Revenue shall ensure and direct his sub-ordinate revenue/settlement officials that before starting the settlement operation in any area of the province, the leaflet/handbill duly written in Urdu and local language of the respective area shall be distributed in the girls' schools/colleges, hospitals and door to door by deputing a lady constable and if not available the lady teacher or midwife/nurse of the respective basic health unit (BHU)/District Head Quarter Hospital (DHQH).
VI. The respective Deputy Commissioners shall also be directed to arrange the announcement in Urdu and local language of the respective area on loudspeaker in the Masjids/Madrasas, followed by beat of drum in the streets/vicinities, within the precincts of the targeted area(s) of settlement operation.
VII. The DG NADRA is directed to establish an on call special desk facilities at the revenue office of the relevant District/Tehsil for provision of family tree of the deceased, whose property is either likely to be inherited or to be settled during the settlement operation to ensure inclusion of name(s) of female legal heir(s) of any deceased either male or female.
VIII. The DG NADRA is also directed to ensure that wherever the female legal heir
after getting marriage is or has been included in the family tree of her husband,
through registration track system (RTS), the origin of her father's family shall also be ascertained to avoid any deprivation of legal right.
IX. The Secretary, Member Board of Revenue is directed to convene a meeting with the DG NADRA for evolving a comprehensive mechanism for avoiding unnecessary delay for provision of family tree of the deceased and till establishment of special
facility at the revenue offices, an interim procedure shall be devised to achieve the
objects of this judgment.
X. The Secretary, Member Board of Revenue is further directed to constitute a
complaint cell at the Revenue Office(s) supervised by an officer not below the rank of Additional Secretary, to avoid any unnecessary delay in the process of inheritance as well as in the settlement operation and also to eradicate the possibility of illegal
gratification.
XI. The Member Board of Revenue and his all sub- ordinate officials are strictly
directed that in case of any complaint with regard to deprivation of any female legal
heir(s) a legal action shall be initiated against the wrong doers by registering a criminal case under the provision of Section 498- A P.P.C. While for this purpose no
female shall be compelled either to withdraw from her claim or to force her to initiate
a criminal proceeding on her own, rather, it would be the duty of the concerned
revenue official to lodge a criminal case.
XII. All civil suits relating to inheritance pending before the Civil Court are directed
to be decided within three months from receipt of this judgment and such period in no case shall exceed six months, from today, whereas, if any suit is newly instituted, the
same be registered as Inheritance Suit / appeal / revision / petition and be decided
within three months without extension of further time. All the appeals and revisions
pending before the Appellate Court and Revisional Courts are directed to be decided
within one month preferably, but not later than two (02) months. The Member Inspection Team of this court shall circulate a circular and ensure that these directions are followed in letter and spirit within stipulated time.
XIII. The Registrar of this court is directed that if any complaint is received by any aggrieved person against any revenue/settlement official or by any private individual with regard to deprivation of female legal heir either in case of inheritance or settlement operation, the same be immediately placed before us for our perusal in chamber and after passing an appropriate direction same shall immediately be transmitted to Senior Member Board of Revenue for information and compliance.
XIV. Any application/complaint filed with regard to issue decided in this judgment shall be treated as an execution application, which after entering as a Civil Miscellaneous Application shall be proceeded accordingly either under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (C.P.C.) or The Contempt of Court Act 2003, and as a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
12. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mst. Parveen
(Deceased) through LRs. v. Muhammad Pervaiz and others
1, while taking note of this illegal
practice of depriving the womenfolk from their due shares in the inheritance, has noted as follows:
"12. We may once again state that, we are dismayed to observe the all too frequent practice in Pakistan of male heirs resorting to fraud and other tactics to deprive female heirs from their inheritance. While this deprivation causes suffering to those
deprived, it also unnecessarily taxes the judicial system of the country, resulting in a
needless waste of resources. Each and every day that a male heir deprives a female
heir is also an abomination because it contravenes what has been ordained by Almighty Allah."
For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition, without any merit, is dismissed.
MH/65/Bal Petition dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.