1982 PLP 1835 (CLC)

Mian Ata‑ur‑Rehman for Respondent No.

2. Date of hearing.; 23rd May 1981, This is the second round of litigation between the parties. The first round concluded when I decided Constitution Petition No. 1775/R‑76 and remitted the case to the Settlement Commissioner with a direction that he should entrust it to some Deputy Settlement Commissioner other than the one who had decided it earlier, so that the matter be decided afresh in accordance with law.

2. The facts pertaining to this case have been mentioned in extenso in my earlier order dated 8th of December, 1976, while deciding the above writ petition and have also been reiterated by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in the impugned order dated 20.12‑1980 Therefore, I don't think it necessary‑ to repeat those.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that while examining the validity of agreement of association dated 7th of May, 1960 between Abdul Rashid petitioner and Hussain Muhammad respon dent No. 2 pertaining to property No. B‑XIX‑35‑S‑15, Muhallah Guru Nanakpura, Gujranwala, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner did not advert to the relevant important evidence as a result of which be arrived at a conclusion which suffered .from error of law and fact and thus rendered the order to be without lawful authority and as such of no legal effect. Learned counsel also submitted that the Handwriting Expert produced by the respondent did not support him. He further submitted that the pages of the agreement of association did not tally with each other and bore different dates. Reference was also made to the testimony of the marginal witnesses. Learned counsel also raised some other minor points and submitted that para. 29 of the Settlement Scheme No. 1 had not been complied with and the petitioner was not given proper opportunity. But these submissions have no force because now much water has flown under the bridge, and it is too late to urge these points. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order on the ground that it was in accordance with law and as such called for no interference.

4. The sole and the main point for determination is as to whether the Deputy Settlement Commissioner considered the entire evidence and while drawing inference from the same he acted to such a manner that the impugned order is without lawful authority.

5. I have considered this aspect and have also gone through the averments in the petition. All along learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged certain findings of fact. . As a matter of fact, he started from the year 1960 when the question of transfer of the property was first dealt with. But I regret that I cannot re‑open a finding of fact which for Constitutional jurisdiction is final and conclusive.

6. Although the opinion of the Bandwring Expert is relevant but that is not the last word. It is open to the Court/Tribunal to reject the same if there are good grounds and the order is supported by reasons. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, after taking all the relevant facts into consideration, discarded the evidence, which in his opinion, did not inspire confidence. By doing so, I do not think that he com mitted any illegality so as to render the impugned order to be without lawful authority.

7. I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not been able to make out any case for interference in the impugned order. The petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. M.Y.M. Petition dismissed.