' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.--- This petition is directed against judgment, dated 21-8-2001 whereby Civil Revision No,260 of 1983 filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.
2. The petitioners filed a suit for declaration that Mutation No,18, dated 20-5-1953 passed by the Rehabilitation Authorities regarding allotment of land in lieu of claim of land left in India in favor of the respondents and order of Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 30-6-1971 passed in revision petition were suffering from mala tides, void and based on fraud. The suit was instituted on 24-10- 1977 which was contested on the ground that the land in dispute was not owned by Jan Muhammad, deceased father of the parties, who gifted the land to the respondents against which they filed claim and the same was allotted in their favor. The trial Court through judgment, dated 30-6-1981 dismissed the said suit on the ground that the same was barred by time and that Civil Court was not vested with the jurisdiction to go into the legality or otherwise of the orders of the Rehabilitation Authorities under the Settlement and Rehabilitation laws. Appeal tiled by the petitioners was dismissed by the First Appellate Court through judgment, dated 4-11-1982 against which civil revision filed by the petitioners in the High Court has also been dismissed against which leave is sought.
3. Learned Judge of the High Court came to the conclusion that the petitioners did not plead in the plaint that the land in dispute was allotted in lieu of any land left by Jan Muhammad in India. Apart from this, we A have also noticed that Mutation No,18 attested on 20-5-1953 in respect of the claim holder under the Rehabilitation laws against which appeal tiled by the petitioners was accepted by the Collector through order, dated 16-2-1971 against which revision filed by the respondents was accepted by the Rehabilitation Commissioner on 30-6-1971. In appeal, filed by the petitioners before the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, it was stated that she came to know about the alleged fraud in the year 1970, but after decision by the Rehabilitation Commissioner on 30-6-1971, the petitioners kept quite up to 20-10-1977 when they filed the present suit. Under Article 95 of the Limitation Act, 1908, period of limitation for a suit on the ground of fraud is 3 years from the date of acquisition of knowledge of fraud, therefore, it was rightly held to be A barred by time. Orders of the Rehabilitation Authorities under the Rehabilitation laws were immune from challenge before the Civil Court. The petitioners should have sought remedy against the order, dated 30-6-1971 at the appropriate time before the higher forum, for, at the relevant time the said order could be challenged before the High Court in second revision under settlement laws. It has been rightly held that it was not mentioned in the plaint that the land in dispute was allotted against the claim of the land which was in the name of Jan Muhammad at the time of partition.
4. The findings recorded by the Courts below do not suffer from any illegality such as misreading or non-reading of material piece of evidence. For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and .