 |
| Women inheritance rights |
⚖️ بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ کا اہم فیصلہ: خواتین کو وراثتی حق سے محروم نہیں کیا جا سکتا
2025 CLC 1800 — بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ
📌 مقدمہ کیسے شروع ہوا؟
مسماۃ بی بی زہرہ نے اپنے والد مرحوم ملک شیر محمد کی جائیداد میں اپنا شرعی و قانونی وراثتی حصہ حاصل کرنے کے لیے ریونیو حکام سے رجوع کیا۔ ان کا مؤقف تھا کہ ان کے بھائیوں نے انہیں آبائی جائیداد میں ان کا حق نہیں دیا۔
ڈپٹی کمشنر/کلیکٹر کوئٹہ نے ریکارڈ کا جائزہ لینے کے بعد بی بی زہرہ کا نام اس کے قانونی حصے کے مطابق جائیداد کے ریونیو ریکارڈ میں شامل کرنے کا حکم دیا۔
⚖️ بھائیوں نے حکم کے خلاف اپیل اور نظرثانی کی
بھائیوں نے ڈپٹی کمشنر کے حکم کے خلاف کمشنر کوئٹہ ڈویژن کے سامنے اپیل دائر کی، لیکن اپیل مسترد ہوگئی۔
اس کے بعد انہوں نے سینئر ممبر بورڈ آف ریونیو بلوچستان کے سامنے نظرثانی دائر کی، تاہم وہاں سے بھی انہیں کوئی ریلیف نہ ملا اور سابقہ احکامات برقرار رہے۔
🏛️ بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ سے رجوع
ریونیو حکام کے فیصلوں کے خلاف بھائیوں نے بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ میں آئینی درخواست دائر کی۔ ان کا مؤقف تھا کہ بی بی زہرہ کا نام متنازعہ جائیداد کے انتقالات میں شامل نہیں کیا جانا چاہیے۔
💰 بہن کو رقم دینے کا دعویٰ
بھائیوں نے مؤقف اختیار کیا کہ انہوں نے 2008ء میں اپنی بہن کو اس کے حصے کے بدلے 10 لاکھ روپے ادا کر دیے تھے اور اس سلسلے میں 30 جون 2008ء کا ایک معاہدہ بھی پیش کیا۔
تاہم عدالت نے معاہدے کا جائزہ لیا تو معلوم ہوا کہ یہ غیر رجسٹرڈ تھا اور اس میں مبینہ طور پر ادا کی گئی 10 لاکھ روپے کی رقم بھی درج نہیں تھی۔
❌ عدالت نے بھائیوں کا مؤقف مسترد کر دیا
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ اگر واقعی بہن کو اس کا وراثتی حصہ پہلے ہی ادا کر دیا گیا تھا تو پہلے تمام قانونی وارثوں کے نام سے باقاعدہ وراثتی انتقال ہونا چاہیے تھا۔ محض یہ دعویٰ کہ خاتون کو نقد رقم دے دی گئی تھی، اس کے وراثتی حق کو ختم کرنے کے لیے کافی نہیں۔
🔍 سابقہ انتقالات میں بہن کا نام بھی چھپایا گیا
عدالت نے یہ بھی نوٹ کیا کہ مرحوم کی بعض دیگر جائیدادوں کے وراثتی انتقالات میں بھی بی بی زہرہ کا نام شامل نہیں کیا گیا تھا۔
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ اگر بھائیوں نے واقعی اپنی بہن کو اس کا حصہ دے دیا تھا تو اس کا نام وراثتی ریکارڈ میں شامل کیا جانا چاہیے تھا۔ اس کے بجائے مختلف وراثتی انتقالات میں اس کا نام خارج رکھنا بھائیوں کے مؤقف کو مشکوک بناتا ہے۔
👩⚖️ خواتین کے وراثتی حقوق کا تحفظ
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ وراثتی انتقال میں مرحوم کے تمام قانونی وارثوں، خواہ مرد ہوں یا خواتین، کے نام شامل کرنا ضروری ہے۔ کسی خاتون وارث کا نام چھپا کر یا خارج کرکے اسے اس کے شرعی و قانونی حق سے محروم نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ کسی خاتون وارث کو محض نقد رقم، دستبرداری، تحفے یا کسی اور ذریعے سے اس کے شرعی وراثتی حق سے محروم نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔
🏛️ ریونیو حکام کی ذمہ داری
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ خواتین کے وراثتی حقوق کا تحفظ ریونیو حکام کی اہم ذمہ داری ہے۔ وراثتی انتقال کرتے وقت تمام قانونی وارثوں کی درست نشاندہی اور ان کے نام ریکارڈ میں شامل کرنا ضروری ہے تاکہ کسی خاتون وارث کا حق ضائع نہ ہو۔
📜 خواتین کے حق میں اہم عدالتی ہدایات
عدالت نے خواتین کو وراثتی حقوق سے محروم کرنے کے بڑھتے ہوئے رجحان کے حوالے سے سابقہ عدالتی ہدایات کا بھی حوالہ دیا، جن کے مطابق وراثتی عمل میں خواتین وارثوں کے نام چھپانا یا انہیں ان کے حق سے محروم کرنا قابلِ قبول نہیں۔
عدالت نے اس اصول پر بھی زور دیا کہ خواتین کے وراثتی حقوق قرآن و قانون دونوں کے تحت محفوظ ہیں اور ریونیو حکام کو وراثتی معاملات میں اس حق کے تحفظ کو یقینی بنانا چاہیے۔
⚖️ سپریم کورٹ کے فیصلے کا حوالہ
ہائی کورٹ نے Mst. Parveen (Deceased) through LRs. v. Muhammad Pervaiz and others (2022 SCMR 64) کا حوالہ بھی دیا، جس میں سپریم کورٹ نے خواتین کو وراثت سے محروم کرنے کے رواج پر سخت تشویش کا اظہار کیا تھا۔
🔴 حتمی فیصلہ
بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ درخواست گزار بھائی اپنے دعوے کو قابلِ اعتماد قانونی ثبوت سے ثابت نہیں کر سکے۔ پیش کیا گیا معاہدہ بھی ان کے مؤقف کو ثابت کرنے کے لیے کافی نہیں تھا۔
لہٰذا عدالت نے بھائیوں کی آئینی درخواست مسترد کر دی اور ریونیو حکام کی جانب سے بہن کے وراثتی حق کو تسلیم کرنے والے احکامات برقرار رکھے۔
📚 قانونی حوالہ
2025 CLC 1800
بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ
C.P. No. 287 of 2024 — فیصلہ 26 مئی 2025
بلوچستان لینڈ ریونیو ایکٹ 1967 — دفعات 45 اور 172
Must read judgment.
Before Muhammad Ejaz Swati, CJ and Muhammad Aamir Nawaz Rana, J
[Balochistan]
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 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 petitioners was mentioned in the agreement agreement otherwise void-High Court interfere in mutation aftested in favour of respondent---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. their predecessor-in-interest, in his lifetime, had gifted of properties dispute favour of his
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, RAN 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".
- It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.1 filed an I 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:
Mahal Shara Killa
b. Mahal Karez Khaliq Dad
c. Mahal Karez Baha-ud-Din
d. Mahal Karez Shams-ud-Din
Mahal Viala Nauhsar
Mouza Nauhsar, Tappa Nauhsar, Tehsil Saddar, District Quetta.
-
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 ie. 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 I averre 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.
-
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.
-
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 the arguments of the parties and f 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.
-
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).
-
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:
-
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 petitioners upon the alleged agreement dated ted 30.06.2008. The perusal of the alleged agreement dated 30.06.2008 reflects that neither the same was registered, nor consideration amount, as alleged by the petitioners i.e. Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees One Million), mentioned, so for all intents and purposes, the said agreement even otherwise is void.
-
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 Le. Malik Muhammad Naseem Khan (late) along with petitioner Nos.2 and 3 concealed the name of respondent No.1 Le. their sister in the said along with petitioner N 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.
-
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: 1. 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 the property firstly in n the 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 (DHOH).
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 e 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 evenue/settlement official or by any private individual with regard regard to to deprivation of temale femal hale legal 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.
- Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mst. Parveen (Deceased) through LRs. v. Muhammad Pervaiz and others, 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.