' This Constitutional petition arises out of the following facts:--
2. Initially Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner, Mirpur allotted the disputed piece of land in the name of petitioners as refugees. This allotment was challenged by the private respondents before Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner who after hearing the parties cancelled the allotment in favour of petitioners and remanded the case to A.R.C. For determination of the entitlement of respective parties and while doing so he formulated certain points upon which an enquiry was required. The petitioners herein feeling aggrieved by the order of D.R.C. Filed an appeal before Rehabilitation Commissioner, Mirpur who upheld the order of D.R.C. By dismissing the appeal. The petitioners challenged the order of Rehabilitation Commissioner before learned Custodian who disallowed their revision petition on the ground of incompetency under law. Hence this writ petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record made available to this Court. This writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the following grounds:--
(1) The order through which the case has been remanded is not a Teal order and the petitioners have alternate remedy to redress their Grievance before relevant Rehabilitation Authority to whom the case has been remanded. In case they fail to get favourable decision they have right of appeal before higher fora on rehabilitation side. Under section 44 of Interim Constitution Act, 1974, the jurisdiction of this Court can only be invoked where no alternate remedy is available to an aggrieved party..
(2) Under section 12 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956 as adapted in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, the Government may by order notified in the official Gazette, specify the cases or class of cases in respect of which a revision petition may be made and unless such order is published no revision petition against the order of any Rehabilitation Commissioner or Rehabilitation Board shall lie before Custodian Evacuee Property. The Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir through its Order No.484 of 1959, dated 21-9-1959, by exercising powers conferred by subsection (1) of section 12 of Rehabilitation Act, 1956 has specified the cases or class of cases subject to revision by the Custodian. The cases specified through the aforesaid order are as follows:--
(a) An order of allotment or cancellation of allotment of immovable property passed by Rehabilitation Board;
(b) An order of allotment, confirma of allotment on appeal or revision or cancellation of allotment passed by a Rehabilitation Commissioner pertaining to immovable property of all kinds, whether urban or rural or pertaining to industrial or business concerns: ' This Government order specifying cases or class of cases when seen in view of subsection (1) of section 12 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956, suggests to say that the order of two Rehabilitation Authorities namely Rehabilitation Commissioner and Rehabilitation Board are subject to revision by the Custodian. No order passed by any other Rehabilitation Authority is subject to revision by the Custodian. Here in this case a revision petition was brought before learned Custodian against an order of Rehabilitation Commissioner through which remand order and cancellation of allotment by D.R.C. Was upheld on appeal. Therefore, the order challenged before learned Custodian was neither an allotment order made by the Rehabilitation Commissioner not it was confirmation of allotment on appeal or revision before Rehabilitation Commissioner nor it was cancellation of allotment by the Rehabilitation Commissioner. Thus, the learned. Custodian while dismissing the revision petition by the petitioners acted perfectly in accordance with law.
3. The order of Rehabilitation Commissioner challenged before learned Custodian through a revision petition was passed on 25-6-2002 and it was challenged before the learned Custodian on 5-8-2002. This order was announced in presence of the learned counsel for the parties. Under rule 10(2) of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Rules, 1951 as applicable in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, the limitation provided for an application for revision against the order of Rehabilitation Commissioner is 15 days from the date of the order sought to be revised. The revision petition before learned Custodian therefore, was hopelessly time-barred.
4. The result is that for the reasons stated above, I find no force in this writ petition which stands dismissed.