' CH. IJAZ AHMED, J.--- We intend to decide the captioned petitions by one consolidated order having similar facts arising out of the common impugned judgment of the learned Lahore High Court, dated 15-12-2006.
2. The brief facts out of which the present petitions arise are that predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners Mst: Razia Begum and Syed Akbar Raza participated in the auction proceedings held by the Settlement Department qua the Plots. Nos.80/B and 161/A situated in Block No,9, Jhang Saddar which were auctioned on 29-4-1968. The predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners did not deposit the 1/4th of the auction money at the spot and also did not deposit the remaining 3/4th auctioned money within 30 days from the date of confirmation of the auction. However, the petitioners had deposited auction money in the year 1989 and transfer order in favor of Mst. Razia Begum was issued in the year 1990 and transfer order in favor of Syed Akbar Raza was issued in the year 1992.
Predecessors-in-interest of the respondents Nos.3 to 9 namely Wiryam filed an application before the Member Board of Revenue with the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner on the ground that Mr. Ansar Raza/petitioner No,1 was posted as Settlement Inspector in Jhang who prepared a forged and fictitious bid sheet regarding the plots in question and transfer order was procured in the year 1990 in favor of Mst. Razia Begum who died about 20 years ago, in the year 1970. Transfer order in favor of Syed Akbar Raza was issued on 27-12-1992. Member Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner entrusted the case after preliminary inquiry to the Additional Deputy Commissioner (G)/Deputy Settlement Commissioner/ Deputy Administrator/Notified Officer, District Jhang who was directed to initiate proceedings and decide the matter after providing proper hearing to all the concerned. The said Notified Officer in obedience of the direction of the Chief Settlement Commissioner had decided the case after providing proper hearing to all the concerned and had come to the conclusion that petitioners had secured plots in question by fraud and misrepresentation vide orders, dated 23rd July, 1997. Petitioners being aggrieved filed Constitutional Petitions Nos.129/R and 13Q/R of 1998 which were dismissed by the learned High Court vide impugned judgment. Hence, this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that learned High Court had erred in law to upheld the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by misreading and non-reading of the record. He further submits that the petitioners' predecessors-in-interest had participated in the auction proceedings with regard to the plots in question held by the Settlement Department. The bids of their predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners qua the plots in question were highest which were accepted. The petitioners' predecessor-in-interest could not deposit the amount within the stipulated period in terms and conditions of the auction on account of inaction of the officers/officials of the Settlement Department. He further maintains that sufficient material was available on the record to show that the plots were secured by the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners in accordance with law and the learned High Court had erred in law to dismiss the constitutional petitions on the ground that the learned High Court could not decide the disputed questions of fact in constitutional jurisdiction.
4. The learned counsel for the private respondents has supported the impugned judgment.
5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the available record. It is an admitted fact as alleged by the petitioners that auction of the plots in question were held on 29-4-1968. The Notified Officer after thorough examination of the record had given findings of fact that all the proceedings i,e, preparation of bid sheet by Ansar Raza (posted at that time as Settlement Inspector) in favor of Syed Akbar Raza and issuance of T.O.
No,13012 on 27-12-1992 in respect of Plot No,161/A measuring 10 Marlas and 19 sq. Ft. Were proved to be based on fraud and forgery and the same was cancelled. Similarly, the Notified Officer after thorough appreciation of evidence had come to the conclusion that all the proceedings i,e, preparation of bid sheet by Ansar Raza Settlement Inspector posted at that time in favor of his mother Mst. Razia Begun and issuance of T.O. No,60 issued in favor of dead woman in the year 1990 in respect of Plot No,80/B measuring 11 Marlas and 166 sq. Ft. Were proved to be based on fraud and forgery and the same was cancelled. It is pertinent to mention here that the predecessors-in- interest of the petitioners had not deposited the auction money within the stipulated period of 30 days and also did not obtain any permission under the law from the Chief Settlement Commissioner within the stipulated period to deposit the auction money. Admittedly auction money was deposited on behalf of Mst. Razia Begum in the year 1989 after 20 years. Similarly the auction money with regard to Plot No,161/A had been deposited after 23 years without securing any order from the competent authority. These facts were duly noted by the learned High Court in the impugned judgment as evident from paragraphs 9 to 12. It is pertinent to mention here that all the grounds which are raised before us are exactly the same which were raised by the petitioners' counsel before the learned High Court and the same were rejected by the learned High Court in paragraphs Nos.9 to 12 with cogent reasons after judicial application of mind. It is an admitted fact that transfer orders were secured by the petitioners in favor of their predecessors-in-interest in the years 1990 and 1992 respectively in spite of the fact that even if the predecessors of the petitioners could have participated in the auction proceedings and their bids were highest which were accepted by the Settlement Authorities which could be automatically cancelled in terms and conditions of auction under which the plots in question were auctioned as the predecessors of the petitioners could not deposit the amount within the prescribed period. It is pertinent to mention here that transfer orders were procured by the petitioners on behalf of their A predecessors after the repeal of the settlement laws which were repealed vide Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV) of 1975 according to which there was no case pending with regard to the plots in question of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners. Therefore, transfer orders procured by the petitioners in the years 1990 and 1992 were rightly declared to be without lawful authority by the Notified Officer as well as the learned High Court. The impugned judgment is in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in various pronouncements. See Syed Ashfaque Ali's case PLD 2003 SC 132; Naeemullah Khan's case 2001 SCM R 1461 and Akhtar. Munir's case PLD 2003 SC 603. It is an admitted fact that Notified Officer and the learned High Court had given findings of fact against the petitioners and this Court does not normally interfere in the concurrent conclusions B arrived at by the Notified officer and the learned High Court as laid down by this Court in Muhammad Aslam's case 2003 SCM R 1576. It is also a settled proposition of law that High Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings in place of the findings of the Notified Officer while exercising constitutional power as law laid down by this Court in Syed Azmat Ali's case PLD 1964 SC 260.
6. For what has been discussed above, this petition has no merit) and the same is dismissed. Leave declined.