1. ' SARDAR MUHAMMAD SHARIF KHAN, ACTG. C. J.-Land under Survey Nos. 328, 335, 349 and 357 comprising Khewat No, 7 and Khata No, 170 situated in village Tandar, Tehsil Bhimber, District Mirpur is claimed by the petitioners in their ownership since the times of their ancestors and as such, it is said, they hold possession of the same as well. Before partition of the sub-continent, they say, the land in writ was once mortgaged to Labha Ram and Balmukand respondents who are now evacuees and it was since then that the same (land) was got redeemed and receipt for redemption was also obtained thereof. Vide receipt Exh. P. A. In this behalf as petitioners state in the writ petition.
2. ' The Exh. P. A. Was marked before the Deputy Custodian. This receipt dated Sawan 14, 2004 Bk. Was most probably made on behalf of Lal Mann father of Hindu respondents, as former i,e, Lal Mann is shown father of these respondents therein. A portion of the receipt. Was being torn and it was produced as such to show that the portion of the receipt torn bore the names of Hindu respondents who gave the receipt. But how it can be held when there was none reliable to authenticate it even in the Court of Deputy Custodian where a declaratory suit was brought in his Court to the effect that the land in suit was not an evacuee property.
3. ' The Deputy Custodian after concluding the inquiry as warranted by law came to a finding that the land in suit and now in writ is not an evacuee property. Whatever share of the Hindu respondents was entered in the revenue record they were shown as sharers Vide judgment of the Deputy Custodian where a certified copy of Vamabandi' pertaining to the year 2002-2003 Bk. Revealed the status of the Hindu respondents and that Vamabandr was not produced before this Court simply because it did not support their case as was also rightly held by the learned Custodian. The non- Muslim respondents were never shown as mortgagees of the land in petition. They were shown either owners or occupancy tenants as the case may be, of the land in suit. The petitioners made an attempt in collusion with the revenue officials to show that the land in writ was purchased by the' through receipt Exh. PA vide *Khasra Girdawaris' attached with the writ petition which by themselves do not prove the case of the petitioners. No land of the value of Rs, 100 or upwards could legally be transferred during the Dogra Regime without a sale deed being registered as is also the case followed by us today. The Registration Act was then in force as it is now-a-days. Thus the entries in `Khasra Girdawaris' are of no worth which are even contrary to the stand whatsoever taken by the petitioners. The withholding of the Revenue Record of the Dogra Regime from being produced before us cleared indicates that the petitioners have no case so as to make a good claim to be based allegedly on their title of the land in suit which was certainly left by the Hindu evacuees.
4. ' In the alternative it was also claimed that under a provision of law contained in section 25-A of- the Land Reforms Act (amended) the petitioners being old tenants of the land in writ have a good claim for the same to hold it as such and that further on payment of compensation to be determined by the Custodian, they can even acquire ownership rights. But the learned counsel for the petitioners failed to see while taking this plea that the aforesaid provision of law stands repealed and as such no protection sought for can legally be given to them on the basis of a repealed law of which no use could be made while it was in force. The claim of the petitioners was not accepted by the Tribunals of competent jurisdiction : firstly, the Deputy Custodian dismissed the suit of the petitioners after duly having heard it. Secondly, the learned Custodian before whom the appeal against the decision of the Deputy Custodian was preferred also agreed with the latter in dismissing their suit.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to show us as to how the decisions which were given by the said Tribunals were without lawful authority. It was in performance of their functions under law that the matter brought before them by the petitioners was accordingly disposed of, against which the petitioners have no right to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court as no illegality patent on face of the record was committed by either.
6. ' Allotment of the evacuee property in favour of the respondent No, 5 by the Rehabilitation Authorities could finally be challenged before the Custodian by way of revision under the Rehabilitation Act but it was not done so by the petitioners and without first having exhausted proper forum, the petitioners have no right to come to this Court to attract exercise of its discretion in their favour for the relief claimed in respect of the allotment.
7. ' That being so this writ petition is hereby dismissed in limine.