P L D 1982 Quetta 126 (PLP)

MUFTAKHIR-UD-DIN, J.--This petition is directed against the order dated 5-11-1977 passed by the Commissioner, Quetta Division in revision under section 49 of the Frontier Crimes Regulation. The facts out of which this Constitutional Petition arises are that on or about 17-10-1962 one Karak son of Jangul Chuharkhel was killed and on a report made by Malik Gul Khan enquiries were initiated against the respondents Baz Khan and Gulla Khan sons of Jalal Khan. Malik Gullat and Rozi Khan sons of Jangul both brothers of the deceased made a formal complaint before the Assistant Political Agent, Zhob alleging that the murder of Karak was committed by the respondents Baz Khan and Gulla Khan sons of Jalal Khan. The case was referred to the Jirga and during the proceedings before the lirga the dispute was compromised on 1-9-1970 and the Jirga made an award that on payment of compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,050 the accused may not be awarded any sentence. This award of the Jirga was accepted by the A. P. A. and Magistrate First Class, Zhob on 2-10-1970 and a decree in terms of the compromise was passed, and the file was ordered to be consigned to record. The present petitioner made a grievance and asserted that they being the real sons of the deceased had not signed the compromise and the persons who had signed the compromise were not their attorneys. Besides, according to them the compromise was affected on account of some misunderstanding about the surety bonds and the refund of the amount of bonds to the sureties. n these circumstances according to them the matter requires an explanation y those Motabirs responsible for the compromise. But the authorities did not consider their agitation with the result that the petitioners left their abode and became "FARARIES."

2. That some time in the year 1973 the petitioners were allowed to come on "Rahdari" and settle their disputes with the opponents, and on the application made by one Rozi Khan alongwith Azam and Mato the present petitioners, the Assistant Political Agent (Hussain Hamid) on 1-8-1973 forwarded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Zhob (Malik Khan Muhammad Panozai). The Deputy Commissioner, Zhob on 10-11-1973 made the following order "I agree the case be referred to Jirga." And in persuance of this order on 12-8-1974 the Deputy Commissioner, F. C. R. made a reference to the Jirga to answer the questions formulated in this order of reference. Against this order of reference the respondent Baz Khan and others, the persons affected by the reference filed a revision under section 49 of the F. C. R. in the Court of Commissioner, F. C. R., Quetta who, vide his order dated 5-11-1977 accepted the revision and the order of reference dated 12-8-1974 was set aside. Against this order the present Constitutional Petition has been filed in this Court.

3. Mr. Yaqub Khan Eusufzai, the learned counsel for the petitioner had made a grievance before us that the points for determination raised in the order of reference dated 12-8-1974 were within the competence of the Deputy? Commissioner as the previous decision was not complete and the matter could be re‑opened and therefore this reference of 12‑8‑1974 could not be set aside and the order passed by the Commissioner is without lawful authority.

4. We have considered this contention but it has not been possible for us to subscribe to that view because we are of the opinion that the matte having been decided under the provision of F. C. R. could not be ignored by the Deputy Commissioner and he had no power under law to reagitate the matter which had become past and closed. The maintenance of public order, the repose of the society and the quiet of families requires that what has been definitely determined by the competent tribunal shall be accepted as irrefragable legal truth. If it was not for the conclusive effect o all such determination there could be no end of litigation and no security for any person. The rights of parties would be involved in endless confusion and great injustice often done under cover of law. Keeping such principles in view the framers of the F. C. R. had enacted the provisions of section C0, F. C. R. and finality of the proceedings under regulation had been protected. Additionally we observe that the reference made by the Deputy Commissioner on 12‑8‑1974 was not made by him in his own discretion or on his own satisfaction but was mad only at the suggestion of the APA and was on the face of it illegal. This order being illegal cannot be allowed to be perpetuated in writ jurisdiction. In this view of the matter we follow the precedent laid down by this Court in an unreported judgment in Mohiuddin v. M. B. R. C. P. No. 60 of 1981.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has complained that the findings of the Commissioner F. C. R. as regards the petitioners being present or having received the compensation was factually erroneous, we find from the perusal of the learned Commissioner F. C. R. that he had before him the entire record and the matter was heard in the presence of the . parties. The power under revision cover the questions of legality as well as propriety of the decisions of the subordinate officers. The considerations which prevailed with the Commissioner F. C. R. and the findings arrived at by him may or may not be correct but we do not think that having regard to the nature o the case and the limits of our jurisdiction we should go into the disputed questions of facts. It is well settled principle that Tribunal of exclusive; jurisdiction are empowered to decide disputed questions of facts rightly of wrongly and the mere fact of a decision of the tribunal of exclusive jurisdic?tion being wrong on a question of fact would not render the decisions without lawful authority. Reference, if any, needed, may be made to Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others (P L D 1974 S C 139), Muhammad Sharif and another v. Muhammad Afzal Sohail etc. (P L D 1981 S C 246), Syed Shah v. Political Agent, Bajaur Agency and 3 others (P L D 1981 Pesh, 57) and Muhammad Salim and another v. The Land Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division and 5 others (P L D 1964 B J 15). Keeping these principles in view we hold that the order of the Commissioner is in accord with the equities of the case and is not open to exceptions on any legal plane, and the matter has been rightly treated by him as past and closed. The petition therefore has no merits and is accordingly dismissed, with costs. S. A. H. ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.