' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.--- This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment, dated 4-12-2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, in a civil revision arising out of a suit for declaration.
2. The relevant facts giving rise to this petition are that Ghulam Khan and others, petitioners, herein, filed a suit on 5-11-1979 claiming that they were in possession of evacuee land measuring 17 Kanals, 10 Marlas before the repeal of evacuee laws by virtue of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Ordinance, 1974 and having deposited its price, would be deemed to be its exclusive owners under Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 and that the orders, dated 5-3-1972, 28-1-1978 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Pindigheb and Collector, exercising the powers of Deputy Settlement Commissioner and Settlement Officer respectively and the order dated 13-8-1979 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Rawalpindi, on the settlement side, were illegal and without jurisdiction. In the nutshell, the case of the petitioners, was that after repeal of the evacuee laws, all available properties were required to be disposed of under the repealing Act and the transfer of suit property under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 was illegal. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Judge and the appeal filed by the petitioners against the dismissal of their suit was also dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Attock. The civil revision preferred by the petitioners in the High Court met the same fate.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that there was no evidence to show that the land was proposed in the name of respondents for allotment before the repeal of evacuee laws, therefore, its transfer under Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 after repeal of evacuee laws, was without lawful authority but unfortunately all the three Courts having taken a wrong view of the factual and legal position, held that the order dated 5-3-1975 by virtue of which the land was transferred in the name of respondents was valid.
4. Learned counsel representing the private respondent on the other hand, while producing a true copy of RL-II showing the entries in the name of respondents, has submitted that the temporary allotment in the name of respondents in the form of proposal was made before the repeal of evacuee laws in 1974 and therefore, the land was not available at the time of repeal of evacuee laws to be treated as available property for disposal under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. The learned counsel submitted that the question whether the property was available or nor at the time of commencement of repealing Act, being purely a question of fact, the three Courts have concurrently held that it was not an available property and unless the finding would be shown to have been suffering from the defect of misreading or non- reading of evidence no interference by this Court would be called.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and examined the record with their assistance. The perusal of RL-II shows that the land in the Khatta in question was entered in the name of respondent on 3-11-1973 i,e, before repeal of the evacuee laws in 1974 and this proposal was confirmed in their names by the Assistant Commissioner, Pindigeb, exercising the powers of Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 5-3-1975. This order of confirmation of temporary allotment was upheld by the Collector and Additional Commissioner vide orders, dated 28-1-1978 and 13-8- 1979 exercising the power of Settlement Authorities under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons (Repeal) Act, 1975. It was held that the land, subject-matter of the dispute, was not available for transfer at the time of repeal of evacuee laws, therefore, it would not be deemed to be available property and the mere fact that formal order of confirmation of the temporary allotment was passed after repeal of the evacuee laws, would not change the character of property. The available property has been defined under section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons (Repeal) Act, 1975 as under:-- "3. Transfer of property.--- All properties, both urban and rural, including agricultural land, other than such properties attached to charitable, religious or educational trusts or institutions, whether occupied or unoccupied, which may be available for disposal immediately before the repeal of the aforesaid Acts and Regulations, or which may become available for disposal after such repeal as a result of a final order passed under subsection (3) of section 2, shall stand transferred to the Provincial Government on payment of such price as may be fixed by the Federal Government in consultation with the Provincial Government, for disposal--- (a)..
(b)..
(2).
' The Notified Officer exercising the powers under section 2(2) of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons (Repeal) Act, 1975, was empowered to finally dispose of the pending matters relating to the allotments made under Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. Subsections (2) and (3) to section 3 of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons (Repeal). Act, 1975, provide as under:-- "(2) Upon the repeal of the aforesaid Acts land Regulations, all proceedings which, immediately before such repeal, may be pending before the authorities appointed there under shall stand transferred for final disposal to such officers as may be notified by the Provincial Government in the official Gazette and all cases decided by the Supreme or High Court after such repeal which would have been remanded to any such repeal shall be remanded to the officers notified as aforesaid.
(3) Any proceedings transferred or remanded to an officer in pursuance of subsection (2) shall be disposed of by him in accordance with the provisions of the Act or Regulation hereby repealed to which the proceedings relate."
' In the present case, the Notified Officer completed the proceedings relating to the allotment in favor of respondents under Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, in terms of (ibid) section 2(2), and (3). The petitioners at the first instance challenged the allotment before the Settlement Authorities and on failure, invoked the jurisdiction of Civil Court. Therefore, the question relating to the jurisdiction of Civil Court due to the bar contained in section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, would also need determination but since no such objection regarding the adjudication of the dispute by the Civil Court was raised at any stage, therefore, we need not to dilate upon the same in this petition.
6. Notwithstanding the claim of possession of the land by the petitioners, the Settlement Authorities held that the property was not available for disposal under Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons A (Repeal) Act, 1975, therefore, the factual controversy regarding the character of property stood resolved. Later the learned Civil Judge having come to the same conclusion, dismissed the suit which was further upheld by the Appellate Court in appeal and by the High Court in the civil revision, therefore, the same would call no interference by this Court. This petition being without any substance is accordingly dismissed. Leave is refused.