' The case of the petitioners is that in the year 1948-49 they occupied some portions of open plot comprising Survey No, 13 belonging to evacuee Jaswant Singh just outside the municipal limits of Mirpurkhas Town and raised constructions thereon In the year 1967 the Settlement Department numbered the respective plots in the possession of the petitioners as Plots Nos. 9, 12, 13, 3, 11, 169/74- 9, 21, 17, 21, 19 and 5, and transferred the same to the petitioners in open auction and on "P" Form.
However, first respondent Mir Haji Ghulam Mohammad raised a dispute and claimed that the plots with the buildings thereon in possession of the petitioners are situated in his agricultural Survey No, 3 and, therefore non-evacuee property belonging to him. He, therefore, challenged the transfers in favour of the petitioners in appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Hyderabad. The latter held an enquiry into the matter and called for a report from the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, who by his letter dated 17th October, 1969 admitted that the disputed plots formed part of the first respondent's land and had been incorrectly disposed of by his Office as evacuee property. The Additional Settlement Commissioner accordingly cancelled the transfers by his order dated 5th November, 1969. Aggrieved by the order the petitioners filed a revision before the Settlement Commissioner, Karachi. The latter by his order dated 12th January, 1970 referred the question of the status of the property in dispute to the Custodian of Evacuee Property under section 41 of Act XII of 1957 and adjourned the consideration of the revision sine die. The reference was then taken up by the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property, Karachi and Hyderabad Divisions at Karachi, who after hearing the parties and considering the evidence produced by them reached the conclusion that the disputed plots are non-evacuee properties belonging to the first respondent vide his order dated 6th January, 1973. The petitioners then challenged the said order before the Custodian, Evacuee Property, Sind, who affirmed the order of the Deputy Custodian by his impugned order dated 24th January, 1974 and dismissed the revision application filed by the petitioners. The petitioners now seek to challenge the last mentioned two orders in this Constitutional Petition.
2. Mr. Malik Mohammad Saeed, learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the following contentions :- (i)The impugned order of the Deputy Custodian has not done substantial justice as the identity of the two survey numbers viz. Survey No, 3 belonging to the first respondent and survey No, 13 belonging to evacuee Jaswa nt Singh has not been determined.
(ii) The evidence on which the learned Deputy Custodian relied was not disputed by the petitioners so far as the ownership of Survey No, 3 as the property of the first respondent is concerned, but the controversy related to the property transferred to the petitioners which forms part of evacuee Survey No, 13 but this question was not determined.
(iii) The Deputy Custodian relied on irrelevant evidence which did not go to the root of the matter, that is identity of the property.
(iv) The bare reading of the order of the Deputy Custodian shows that he has not exercised jurisdiction properly and adjudicated the matter, so as to clear the doubt as regards the situation of the two plots of land.
3. It will be seen that the first two and the last contentions really relate to one and the same matter and in substance the contention is that the learned Deputy Custodian did not determine the question of the exact location and identity of the non-evacuee property belonging to the first respondent and the evacuee property purporting to have been transferred to the petitioners. I find no substance in this contention, The learned Deputy Custodian has elaborately and exhaustively dealt with the evidence produced before him and has clearly reached the finding that the plots of land and constructions thereon transferred to the petitioners are really the non-evacuee property of the first respondent. This finding has been expressed in the following words :- "After having examined the evidence of the parties minutely I am convinced that the disputed plots are part of Survey Nos..3 and 4 which is property of the respondent."
' Further so far as the claim of the petitioners that the properties transferred to them were located on Survey No, 13, he observed :- "It has been emphasised that the disputed plots are on Survey No, 13, but I am unable to accept this contention for two reasons firstly no evidence has been led from the applicants' side to the effect nor a word has been spoken about this stand and secondly nothing has been brought on record to make out such a case nor there is any such mention in the reference."
' The learned Deputy Custodian has further based his finding on the following documents :-
(i) Certified true copies of the Record of Rights as maintaine by the Revenue Authorities showing the first respondent as owner of Survey Nos. 1, 3 and 4 of Deh Kuth, Mirpurkhas.
(ii) Order dated 7th April, 1958 of the Deputy Commissioner, Mirpurkhas sanctioning the conversion of the aforesaid agricultural plots into sikni land.
(iii) Sanad dated 9th September, 1958 regarding the sikni grant.
(iv) Sketch showing the boundaries and measurements of the aforesaid survey numbers as confirmed by the letter dated 20th April, 1970 from the Office of Director of Settlement Survey and Land Record, Southern Zone, West Pakistan, Hyderabad.
(v) Challan showing payment of fee for conversion of agricultural land to sikni use.
(vi) Notice dated 10th August, 1958 showing demand for payment of land revenue.
(vii) Extracts of P. T. I alongwith the names of the occupants in respect of the disputed property.
(viii) Lease Agreement executed by the tenants of the property.
4. In addition to the above the oral evidence of Abdul Aziz, Inspector of Excise and Taxation Department, Mirpurkhas and Sultan Ahmed, Clerk of Municipal Office, Mirpurkhas in support of the concerned documents was also considered. It was also found that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had given his own numbers to some of the properties which were shown to belong to the respondent Additionally the statement of the Inspector of Settlement Department has been relied upon to the effect that neither the Custodian Authorities nor the Settlement Authorities had ever surveyed these plots as evacuee properties. There was, therefore, great deal of evidence produced by the first respondent which was accepted by the Deputy. Custodian in arriving at his finding. These are all questions of fact and are not open to challenge in the Constitutional jurisdiction. It is well settled that in the Extraordinary Jurisdiction the High Court cannot review findings of fact arrived at by the lower Tribunal as .a Court of Appeal unless it is shown that the finding was not supported by any evidence at all or where such finding was arrived at by ignoring evidence on record. That the High Court may take a different view of the eviden e on record is no ground of interference with the linding of the lower Tribunal. In the present case there was ample evidence which could be made the basis for the finding arrived at by the learned. Deputy Custodian. As shown above I also find no substance in the contention that the learned Officer left undetermined the question referred to him. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner has himself admitted that the properties were wrongly treated as evacuee properties and transferred to the petitioners.
5. As regards the third contention it was urged that the documents produced from the Municipal Records were not relevant as they were not material so far as the identity of the property is concerned. In this connection it may be pointed out that in the impugned order the learned Deputy Custodian made the following observation :- "The other part of his evidence deals with the next point that the constructions on these sikni lands are his property which have been surveyed by the Excise and Taxation Authorities and Municipal Authorities as his own properties. In the Extracts of P. T. I even the names of the occupants have been given. Abdul Aziz, Inspector of Excise and Taxation Department, Mirpurkhas and Sultan Ahmed, Clerk of Municipal Office, Mirpurkhas in their statements have confirmed the authenticity of these documents."
' Obviously, therefore, the Municipal Record was produced to show that the Municipal Authorities had surveyed the constructions on the disputed plots showing them as the property of the first respondent. The evidence was, therefore, relevant. Additionally it is mentioned in the order that the certified copy of the site plan prepared by the Revenue Authorities under the order of the Deputy Custodian, the boundaries of the sikni survey numbers were shown alongwith the names of the occupants therein. The petitioners were shown in the list of occupants of the property of the first respondent. In the municipal map the disputed properties transferred to the petitioners were shown to be built on Survey Nos. 1 to 4 belonging to the first respondent.
6. The learned connsel for the petitioners urged that the matters may be referred for fresh enquiry to the Deputy Custodian, but as discussed above, there is no justification for adopting such a course.
7. All the contentions raised relate to the merits of the case touching questions of fact, which for reasons already stated do not merit consideration. No other question touching the jurisdiction of the Custodian Authorities was raised.
8. In the result, I find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.