1983 PLP 1252 (SCMR)

ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.‑The respondents Nos. 1‑5 Nazar Khan and others, claim to be successors and heirs of one Jaurey Khan, a displaced person from village Ladamka, Tehsil Pahari, Bharratpur State, India. In lieu of the verified claim of the said Jaurey Khan, land was allotted and confirmed in village Shahabdeekay, Tehsil Narowal District Sialkot. Mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of respondents Nos. 1 4 and Mst. Nahali, by the Assistant Collector, Grade‑II on 5‑2‑1953. No one challenged the allotment or the mutation of inheritance before any authority until the permanent settlement of the said respondents under section 16 of the Displaced Persons (Land and Settlement) Act, 1958 in Decem ber, 1964. After the lapse of nearly a decade Ghulam Rasool and Nawab Din filed an application before the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) on 14‑6‑1976 against the said respondents under sections 10 and 11 read with section 14 (1) (A) of the Act for cancellation of the allotment on the ground that the original claimant had not migrated to Pakistan and that the claim was verified and mutation sanctioned through fraud. This application seems to have been withdrawn subsequently on 15‑8‑1975. Thereafter on an undated application of the petitioners to the same effect, the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner made are order on 28‑6‑1974 that the application may await consideration since jurisdiction year the application had come to an end. On 14‑3‑1975 he made another note on the application to the effect that orders for hearing such applications had been received and finally after hearing the parties by order dated 19‑9‑1975 relying on a pedigree table produced by the petitioners, he held that respondents Nos. 1‑4 were not the successors‑in‑interest of the deceased claimant and cancelled the allotments and confirmed the same in favour of the petitioners.

2. The respondents Nos. 1‑4 challenged the aforesaid order in the constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court, Lahore vide Writ Petition No. 1129‑R of 1975. A learned single Judge of the High Court by his judgment, dated 20‑11‑1978 allowed the Constitutional Petition declaring the impugned order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, dated 19‑9‑1975 as "totally without lawful authority and of no legal effect". It was held by the learned single Judge in the impugned judgment, that there was no evidence showing as to how the respondents had com mitted fraud in obtaining sanction of mutation in their favour, that the pedigree table relied upon by the petitioners supported the fact that respondents Karim Khan, Kanwal Khan and Nazar Khan figured therein as descendants that the orders passed by the competent authorities sanction f1g mutation as far back as 1953 having attained finality, in that no appeal or revision under the relevant law was filed, could not be challenged after the lapse of so many years, that the previous application on the same Subject‑matter having been dismissed there was no further jurisdiction available under the law for the Settlement Authorities to pass orders inconsistent with the same and finally that the application on which Proceedings were taken by the Settlement Authorities, having once been consigned to the record for want of jurisdiction, could not be treated as pending proceedings and disposed of under the provisions of the Evacuee Properties and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. The petitioners king aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the High Court, now seek lave to appeal by means of this petition.

3. In support of this petition learned counsel has argued that the allotment of the respondents was competently cancelled in exercise of powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons Act delegated to the Settlement Commissioner and hence the order was not without jurisdiction. He further submits that the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction could not be substituted by the High Court in the constitutional jurisdiction. Hence, in the submission of the counsel the question that the respondents committed fraud in obtaining allotment stands concluded by a conclusive finding of fact.

4. After hearing the learned counsel at length, however, we find no force in any of the contention. The findings arrived at by the learned Judge in the High Court are supported by the decision of this Court in Officer on Special Duty v. Bashir Ahmed (1977 S C M R 208) which has been referred to and relied upon. We further feel that the case advanced before the Settlement Commissioner in the application under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act being that Jaurey Khan had died in India would seem to relate to the registration of the claim under the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956 and consequently the Settlement Authorities would be incompetent to deal with the question of fraud committed upon the officers of the claims organisation, under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act. In the circum stances and for reasons assigned by the High Court, there attached no finality to the findings recorded by the Settlement Commissioner in his order dated 19‑9‑1975 so as to oust the constitutional jurisdiction.

5. After taking into consideration the arguments of the learned counsel we are satisfied that this is not a fit case for interference by this Court and, therefore, dismiss this petition. M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.