1. DORAB PATEL, AL-TG. C J.-The dispute in tins petition for leave relates to a property in Hyderabad which became evacuee on the migration of its owner to India. Therefore, on the assumption that the property had passed to the compensation pool it was auctionedby the Settle a Department on the 28th and again on the 29th of August, 1969. Mr. Zahiruddin explained that one Maulvi Ishaq who was in occupation of the property wanted to buy it, and this had led to disturbances at the auction, therefore, initially the Settlement Department decided to accept Maulvi Ishaq's bid for the property, although it was only for a sum of Rs. 2,500. However, as the petitioner had made a bid for Rs. 5,500 ultimately it was his bid which was accepted, and, therefore, a P. T. O. For the property had been issued to him. The petitioner had thereupon deposited a sum of Rs. 3,750, against the auction price of Rs. 5,500. But, it would appear that the property had been a Temple, and had, therefore, been described in the records of the Collector, Hyderabad, as a Tikano. In these circumstances, on learning that the property had been illegally sold by the Settlement Department, the District Evacuee Trust Committee moved a reference on 31-10-1970 under section 4(3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 for a declaration that the property was a charitable and religious Evacuee Trust Property. This application was heard and allowed by the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore, who in his dual capacity as Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board and as Settlement Commissioner with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, camp at Hyderabad.
2. Aggrieved by this order, which was passed on 14th January, 1972, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the Sind Baluchistan High Court in which his contention was that the property had never been a Temple as held by the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board in his order of 14th January, 1972. In the events that happened, the writ petition was heard and dismissed by a learned Judge of the Sind High Court on the short ground that the order of 14th January, 1972 was amply supported by evidence, therefore, it could not be set aside in its limited constitutional jurisdiction. Accordingly, aggrieved by this judgment, the petitioner has filed this petition for leave.
3. Mr. Zahiruddin very fairly conceded that he could not challenge the finding in the impugned judgment that the order of the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board was supported by evidence, therefore, he raised for the first time before us a legal objection. This was that the Settlement Commissioner was not competent to hear and decide the application of the District Evacuee Trust Committee of Hyderabad, because the application had been heard and decided after 1st January, 1972 and on the basis of a letter of the Federal Government dated 1st December, 1971 (page 53 of the Paper Book) learned counsel submitted that after 1st January, 1971, the Settlement Commissioners of the four provinces of the West Pakistan could only hear and decide matters relating to property situated within the respective provinces, therefore, the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore, had no jurisdiction to allow an application under section 4(3) of the Displaced .4 Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, which related to a property in the province of Sind.
4. The argument has to be rejected for more reasons than one. In the first place, as we pointed out, the impugned order was passed by the Settlement Commissioner of Lahore in his dual capacity as Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board and Settlement Commissioner. Secondly, and this is much more important, the petitioner had taken his chance obtaining a favourable order from the authority which he now describe as the Settlement Commissioner. Lahore. Therefore, on the law declared by this Court in Ghulam Mohyuddin v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (PLD 1964SC829) he cannot be permitted to challenge the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commis--sioner, Lahore. We may also point out that this plea is being raised for the first time before us, therefore, on this ground also we would not be justified in entertaining it.
5. The petition is without merit and is dismissed.