1975 PLP 455 (SCMR)

HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑The petitioners in this case, who claim to be refugees from Hissar, East Punjab, submitted their claim forms originally for Chak No. 39/WB, Multan, but, as this was a congested area, they were given allotments in that Chak in partial satisfaction of their claims. Their surplus units were transferred to village Dipalpur, District Sahiwal, on 31‑12‑1959, and certain areas were there reserved for them. They sub sequently moved an application as informants before the D. R. C., complaining that the respondent No. 2 had fraudulently obtained an order from the A. R. C., Dipalpur, on 25‑2‑1960, whereby lands equivalent to 478 P. I. Units had been allotted to her in Khata No. 874, which had been reserved for the petitioners. The petitioners also filed an appeal against the said order dated 25‑2‑1960 before the D. R. C. regarding the allotment in favour of respondent No. 2 out of their reserved area. The D. R. C. marked the application to A. R. C. for enquiry. The respondent No. 2 was represented before the A. R. C. by her husband as well as her learned counsel. The A. R. C., after hearing them, submitted his report on 2‑4‑1960 finding that the respondent No. 2 had fraudulently got surrendered land confirmed in Khata No. 592 on the basis of an order of D. R. C. dated 13‑5‑1957, which had been set aside by the learned Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner on 13‑10‑1957. It was also found that she had held an illegal allotment of 562 units in excess of her entitlement. This report was got re-verified by the D, R. C. through another Rehabili tation officer who confirmed the findings therein. Thereupon, the D. R. C. approved the report on 19‑7‑60 canceling the allotment of 478 units in Khata No. 874 in favour of the said respondent as also 562 units of garden lands, which were found to have been obtained in excess of her entitlement. The area so cancelled from the respondent No. 2 was allotted to the petitioners in adjustment of their outstanding units in village Dipalpur. This allotment was subsequently confirmed in the names of the petitioners on 22‑10‑64 and an RL‑II was issued to them on 25‑3‑

65. The petitioner's appeal against the order of the A. R. C. dated 25‑2‑60 was also disposed of in the same terms. The respondent No. 2 sought to challenge the said order of 19‑7-60 before the Higher Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities but without any success. Then she came to the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore by Writ Petition No. 1594/R of 1965. A learned Single Judge of the said High Court accepted the petition and declared the order parse on 31‑10‑1957 by the Additional Rehabili tation Commissioner, setting aside the order of the D. R. C. Mr. Rizavi dated 13‑5‑5 7 as being without lawful authority. The learned Judge also remanded the case back to she Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner Multan for decision afresh. The petitioners now seek special leave to appeal. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition has raised a number of points which really go to support the validity of the order of the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 31‑10‑1957. All the questions raised by the learned counsel, however, necessitate investigation into questions of fact which the High Court rightly avoided doing in the writ jurisdiction and remanded the case for decision to the Settlement Commissioner. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all these question before the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner. We see no reason, therefore, to interfere in this matter. This petition is, accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.