1. FAZLE-AKBAR, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan at Peshawar announced on the 6th of March 1962. By that order the said High Court dismissed the application made by the appellants for a writ in the nature of a writ of certiorari to call for the records and to quash the order of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Pakistan passed on 18th May 1961 whereby he upheld the order of Settle--ment Commissioner, Peshawar transferring a small shop with a Balakhana to respondent No. 1 Mst.
2. Sardar Begum.
3. The events which led up to the present appeal may now be briefly stated: The appellants who are brothers, were residents of Ziarat Kaka Sabeb. Some 30 years before Partition they started fur and skin business in Calcutta and also continued to stay there with their families. On the Partition of the country they returned to their ancestral home at Ziarat Kaka Sahib.
4. The Rehabilitation Department treating them as refugees allotted to them on 18th February 1950 shop No. 706 in Chowk Yadgar in the Peshawar City where they started business in cloth. They then applied for the transfer of the said shop No. 706 as well as the Balakhana No. 707 which is on the top of the shop. On 15th October 1959 the Deputy Settlement Commissioner ordered for transfer of the shop and Balakhana to them and as they were non---claimants, he directed them to pay the market value of the said property i. e. Rs. 43,718 by monthly installments of Rs. 3643. Mst. Sardar Bagum, a claimant refugee who was in possession of the Balakhana No. 707 filed an appeal against the order of transfer and the Additional Settlement Commissioner who heard the appeal varied the order by transferring the Balakhana to her. Both the parties then went up in revision before the Settlement Commissioner, Peshawar. He took the view that Mst. Sardar Begum being a claimant refugee in possession could not be ejected to make room for non-claimant locals and as the building was not capable of division, he gave the entire building to Mst. Sardar Begum. The above order was also upheld by the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner in revision.
5. The appellants thereupon moved the High Court for a writ for quashing the orders of the Settlement Commissioner and the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner. It was argued before the High Court that the appellants were displaced persons within the meaning of clause 3 of section 2 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958; and that the finding that they were locals was obviously wrong and was liable to be quashed by writ of certiorari because of such glaring error apparent on the record.
6. The learned Judges of the High Court took the view that the error complained of could not be said to be apparent on the face of the record b-.Cause it required examination or arguments to establish it. Hence according to them this was not a proper case for issue of a writ of certiorari. In this view of the matter they without entering into the merits dismissed the petition.
7. Mr. Mahboob Elahi, the learned counsel for the appellants pointed out the following errors in the order of the Chief Settle--ment and Rehabilitation Commissioner;
(i) that the said order proceeds on the assumption that the appellants were locals ;
(ii) that in point of fact the allotments were made to them as refugees after due enquiry; and (i.e) that they were displaced persons within the meanings of clause 3 of section 2 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, because they were permanent residents of Calcutta and had to leave their place due to civil disturbances.
8. Now the question is whether these can be regarded as proper bunds for tie issue of certiori in the present case.
9. Tariq Transport Company v. Sargodha-Bhera Bus Service aid others ((1952) K B 338), this Court after referring to the various decisions of the English Courts observed: "Particularly with reference to writs of certiorari ' and prohibition, the error should generally appear on the very face of the proceedings, and the relief granted should be addressed specifically to the correction of such error. If, then, no error of the relevant kind is made to appear in the petition itself, it is clearly the duty of the Court to reject the petition."
10. This proposition is now well settled and cannot be disputed.
11. The learned counsel has however contended that .The decision of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner is erroneous in law. The next question therefore is whether this can be a ground for `certiorari'.
12. Similar question came up for consideration in Rex v. North--umberland Compensation ; Appeal Tribunal; Ex pane Shaw, (PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 437) and in laying down to what extent an error of law was a ground for granting `certiorari' Denning L. J. Observed: "It will have been seen that throughout all the cases there is one governing rule Certiorari' is only available to quash a decision for error of law `if the error appears on the face of the record."
13. "It is plain that `certiorari' will not issue as the cloak of an appeal in disguise. It does not lie in order to bring an order or decision for rehearing of the issue raised in the proceedings. It exists to correct error of law `where revealed' on the face of an order or decision or irregular or absence of or excess of Jurisdiction where shown."
14. It is therefore clear that a writ of `certiorari' could by issued to correct an error of law, but the error must be manifest on. The face of the record.
15. We may now proceed to consider whether there is art error on the face of the record in this case.
16. The learned counsel has contended that in view of the proved facts in this case the finding that the appellants were not displaced persons within the meaning of clause 3 of section 2 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act of 1958 was erroneous and this error in the construction of section 2(3) was apparent on the face of the record. In support of his contention he has relied on the decision of a Full Bench in Syed Haider Shah v. Mukhtar Hussain Shah (PLD 1963 Lah. 548).
17. The above observations instead of supporting the contention of the learned counsel really go against him. Even on the assumption that the finding of the Chief Settlement and Rehabili--tation Commissioner was wrong it could not be said that the error was apparent on the face of the record because it was not self evident and required investigation of facts and arguments to establish it.
18. Here we may also point out that there were not sufficient and satisfactory materials either before the Settlement Authorities or the High Court in support of the appellants claim that they were displaced persons within the meaning of the Act. The appellants, who were admittedly residents of Ziarat Kaka Sahib claimed to be displaced persons. The answer to this would require investigation into questions of fact namely whether after their alleged migration they permanently took up residence in Calcutta and whether they left Calcutta on or after 1st March 1947 on account of civil disturbances. This they tried to prove by filing statements of the Lambardar of Ziarat Kaka Sahib and of Police officer posted at. Nowshera who were really not competent to speak of the events that took place long ago in Calcutta.
19. We accordingly dismiss this appeal but make no order as to costs.