1970 PLP 54 (SCMR)

S. A. RAHMAN, J.‑The point of contest between the parties in the present case was, whether Mst. Batool Begum, or Syed Zahoor Hussain, the second respondent to this petition, was in prior occupation of the premises in dispute. The final order of the departmental authorities favored the respondent in this respect. The High Court refused to interfere in writ jurisdiction on the ground that the question involved was one of fact. In support of the petition for Special Leave to Appeal, Mr. Masud Ahmad Khan attacked the validity of the order passed by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner appearing at pages 33 and 34 of the record. This officer noted that Syed Zahoor Hussain, respondent's allotment order was dated the 10th February 1949, and he accepted it as a genuine document of the claim of the petitioner there was only the document dated the 20th May 1958, which purported to regularize her older possession, allegedly dating from 24th December 1947. The learned Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner did not believe the recital in this document in respect of the prior possession of the petitioner and observed that there not an iota of evidence to show that any allotment order NN hick was thus regularized, ever existed before. The learned counsel contends that the document dated the 20th. May 1955, in favour of the petitioner was wrongly rejected as insufficient evidence. We cannot uphold this argument, as on a question of fact, it was open to the learned Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner to accept the recital in this document as representing the facts or not. Apparently no other documentary evidence was produced before him to satisfy him on this point The High Court and this Court are not Courts of appeal above the departmental authorities. The attempt of the learned counsel therefore, to refer to other documents as this stage. like the rent note alleged to have been issued to his client in 1948, cannot be allowed. If any such material existed it should have been placed before the departmental authorities themselves. This Court cannot allow the case be re-opened on a question of fact on the basis of material which could have been produced before the departmental authorities, but was not produced. It cannot be said that on the basis of the material actually adduced, the order of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner was open to any legal exception This may be a hard case, but the scope ‑for inter ference by this Court is limited, and we see no ground for holding that the High Court would have been justified to interfere with) the departmental orders in the circumstances of this case. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.