1. ' This is a Constitutional writ petition challenging the order dated 8th November, 1973 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Nawabshah. The facts leading to the filing of the above petition, as disclosed in the petition, are that the petitioner's father was allotted inter alia Survey Nos. 408/1 and 408/2 situated in Deh Muso Dero, Taluka Kandiaro on 1st December, 1958. The petitioner filed a petition in the Court of Assistant Commissioner/DSC (Land), Naushero Feroze alleging therein, that the respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 got mutation in their favour to the extent of 5/4 in the revenue record as showing non-evacuee land belonging to Haji Bhutto the uncle of respondents 2, 3 and 4 fraudulently. The above petition was heard by the Additional Deputy Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land)
2. Nawabshah, who through his impugned order dated 8th November, 1973 has held that there was no interpolation in the revenue record, and that in fact the share to the extent of 5/4 was evacuee.
3. The petitioner has challenged the above finding of the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land).
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Hasan Inamullah, has contended that as the petitioner's father was allotted the entire area of the above two survey numbers on 1st December, 1958, there could not have been any portion of the above two survey numbers as non-evacuee. The above contention is based on surmise as according to the finding of the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) the revenue record of the year 1955/56 shows the above share was non-evacuee in the name of Haji Bhutto, the uncle of the contesting respondents. The learned Additional Deputy Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner
(Land) has also observed that he had examined the record and did not find any interpolation or addition in the revenue record. In the constitutional jurisdiction I cannot go into the correctness of the above finding as it is a question of fact decided by a competent tribunal. Even otherwise the finding appears to be correct on the basis of the revenue record. I therefore, do not find any merit in the petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.