1. ' SARDAR MUHAMMAD SHARIF KHAN ACTG. C J.-The petitioner has come up to this Court against the decision of the learned Custodian dated 8th November, 1980 by way of writ. It was alleged that the impugned order was made without jurisdiction as the learned Custodian had no power to cancel the order of allotment of evacuee property made by a Rehabilitation Authority. It was further alleged that the suitability of the allotment in question could not legally be gone into by the Custodian. Moreover, the time-barred revision petition was considered by the Custodian which as a matter of law was liable to be dismissed.
2. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner was heard.
3. ' The revision petition before the learned Custodian was made against the order of allotment passed by the Rehabilitation Commissioner and it was so done under section 12 of the Rehabilitation Act, 1956 which empowers the Custodian to look into the matter in exercise of his revisional powers and so it cannot be contended that the Custodian had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition which resulted in cancellation of the allotment to a certain extent. A Revising Authority while looking into the matter in dispute was within its competence to look at the suitability or otherwise of the allotment in question. If a lawful authority while dealing with the case as warranted by law is deprived to look into the case as the petitioner wants us to do so in case of Custodian empowered to take cognizance of the matter under section 12 of the Rehabilitation Act, then how could the question involved be determined by that authority.
4. ' The allotment of the land in question was obtained for residential purposes within an area earmarked for construction of buildings and so no land in bulk could be allotted to an individual without assigning any reasons while making allotments in favour of a number of persons out of whom 'milk of the land was allotted to the petitioner and the remgining persons were allotted less land each. No such discrimination could be justified by the Rehabilitation Authority. According to the normal practice as observed by the learned Custodian a piece of land measuring one kanal was to be allotted to an individual for residential purpose. The prayer of the petitioner for allotment was only with regard to the residential purposes and so it was properly adjudged by the learned Custodian that the land over and above one kanal was not suitably allotted to the petitioner.
5. Chhattar Domel is a place where offices of the Government and residential houses are under way in compliance with the scheme of the Government and so no allotment of a big plot was proper to be made to an individual for a residential purpose.
6. ' Lastly, we come to the point of limitation. This point was not raised before the learned Custodian and delay in filing the revision petition before the learned Custodian seems to have been condoned by him for the reasons given in the revision petition which stand unrefuted. The learned Custodian could have legally condoned the delay for a sufficient cause shown.
7. ' That being so, for the reasons above, we are not inclined to accept this writ petition and dismiss the same.