P L D 1961 (W (PLP)

Mazhar‑ul‑Haq for Respondent No.

2. Major Ishaq Muhammad for Respondent No.

3. Muhammad Khalil, Additional Claims Commissioner, Lahore for Respondent No.

1. Date of hearing: 24th November 1960. SHABIR AHMAD, J.‑By this petition Mst. Noor Jahan Begum prays for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order passed, on the 28th of July 1960, by Mir Khurshid Zaman, the then Claims Commissioner, Pakistan. The result of the impugned order was that Begum Mirza Abdur Rahman Baig Birlas alias Bismillah Begum, who is respondent No. 2 to this petition, respondent No. 1 being the Claims Commissioner, Pakistan, respondent No. 3 the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore, respondent No. 4 Izzat Baig and respondent No. 5 Mst. Mahboob Begum, was allowed to withdraw the withdrawal of her claim.

2. The material facts are these. Respondent No. 2, who is a displaced person, had two verified claims, claim No. 9833 being for Rs. 49,880 and No. 10477 being for Rs. 65,

268. On the 23rd of December 1958, respondent No. 2 submitted a declaration under Martial Law Regulation No. 49 to the Deputy Claims Commissioner, Lahore praying that her above‑mentioned two claims be struck off finally and fully from the claims register. Thereupon the Deputy Claims Commissioner, Lahore, passed an order on the 1st of January 1959 in terms of the petition. Before this order was passed, however, respondent No. 2 had addressed an application to the Deputy Claims Commissioner wherein she stated that the withdrawal of her claim was made in a fit of anger and she prayed that her claim regard ing her share in claim No. 10477 be deemed to have been with drawn but her claim No. 9833 be allowed to remain intact. This application was rejected by the Deputy Claims Commis sioner. Against the order of the Deputy Claims Commissioner, respondent No. 2 appealed to the Additional Claims Commissioner, Lahore, who dismissed the appeal whereupon respondent No. 2 presented a petition for revision before the Claims Commissioner, Pakistan who, by his order dated the 28th of July 1960, held that respondent No. 2 could withdraw her withdrawal application and further held that she had succeeded in establishing that the claim mentioned in claim form No. 9833 was genuine.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that respondent No. 2 having put in an application for the withdrawal of her claims, the withdrawal was final and she could not retract from it and, therefore, the Claims Commissioner, Pakistan had no jurisdiction to hold that her claim, which she had withdrawn, was wholly or partly genuine. For this contention, the learned counsel relied on Martial Law Regulation No.

49. Clause (5) sub‑clause (1) of this Regulation, which is relevant for the purposes of this case, reads:‑ "(i) Whoever, being a displaced person, has filed a claim which he does not believe to be true shall, before the 31st of December 1958, present a written statement of all the true facts to the officer before whom the claim is pending, or in case the claim has already been verified, the officer who verified the claim and such statement shall then replace his original claim . It will be noticed that the Regulation makes it clear that claimants were to disclose true facts within the prescribed period and those true facts were to be deemed to be their original claims. If, therefore, in any case a claimant can establish that the facts q disclosed under Martial Law Regulation No. 49 were not correct, it is hardly open to question that the Regulation would not come into play. Soon after Martial Law Regulation No. 49 came into force, some persons withdrew even genuine claims lest they be found to be false in some respect and they them selves come to grief. In the present case, respondent No. 2 stated that she had withdrawn her claim in anger. The fact that she had withdrawn the claim would no doubt be a circumstance to be taken into consideration when determining whether or not her assertion that the withdrawal was based on some considera tions other than truth was correct, but the admission cannot B be conclusive. Within the period allowed by the Martial Law Regulation, respondent No. 2 withdrew from her withdrawal and we are clear that she could have done so if she could prove that the withdrawal was not correct. Whether or not the finding of the Claims Commissioner, Pakistan that respondent No. 2 had succeeded in establishing that her claim No. 9833 was genuine is correct is not for us to decide as we are only concerned with the question regarding the power of the Claims Commissioner to ignore the withdrawal of respondent No. 2 which she had withdrawn within the period mentioned in Martial Law Regulation No.

49. As we have held that respondent No. 2 could withdraw from her withdrawal we see no occasion for exercise of writ jurisdiction and dismiss this petition, but leave the parties to bear their own costs. K. B. A. Petition dismissed.