1. DORAB PATEL, J.-The dispute in this petition for leave relates to land in Lyallpur District. According to the petitioner, Mst. Nathi, daughter of Ghulam Farid, had filed a claim for property inherited by her from her father and the claim was verified and she was allotted land in Chak No. 72fJ.B. Tehsil and District Lyallpur. Mst. Nathi died on 1-6-1959 leaving behind two daughters, Ms'. Sandho and Mst. Amanat. Therefore, on her death the mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of her daughters, on 9-6-1959 by the Assistant Collector, II Grade, Lyallpur. According to the petitioner, this mutation was sanctioned on the assumption that Mst. Nathi did not leave behind any collaterals: But, the petitioners claim to be the collaterals of Ghulam Farid; therefore, on 26-3-1960, they filed an appeal against the Assistant Collector's order of 9-6-1959. As the appeal was time--barred, they had made an application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, but the learned Collector, who heard the appeal was not impressed by their explanation for the delay, therefore, by the order dated 8-8-1960, he dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was time-barred.
2. The petitioners challenged this order in a revision before the commissioner and their only plea appears to be that Mst. Nathi was governed by custom, therefore, they, as the collaterals of Ghulam Farid, were entitled to succeed to the estate of Ghulam Farid, except for the shares to which the daughters of Mst. Nathi were entitled under the Shariat. This revision was dismissed by the Commissioner on 3-7-1963 with the observation that "the Collector was right in rejecting the application as time-barred".
3. The petitioners then filed a second revision before the Member, Board of Revenue arid although their plea before the Commissioner was that the Collector's order had been passed by him "exercising the powers of Collector and Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner," the plea taken by the petitioners for the first time in their second revision was that the land which had devolved on Mst.
4. Nathi had only been allotted to her and as it had' not been permanently settled on her, their appeal under the Revenue laws was not competent, because the appeal should have been filed b,, them under paragraph 46(A) of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation ante Resettlement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme).
5. The Member, Board of Revenue dismissed this second revision on 12-10-1964 and as to the new plea advanced by the petitioners that the Revenue authorities had illegally entertained the appeal and the revision filed by them, the learned Member, Board of Revenue observed;---- "I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at great length. He has referred me to paragraph 46(A) of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation of Settlement Scheme as well as the Displaced Persons Land Settlement Act, 1958. These deal with allotments and not with mutations.
6. After the allotments had been confirmed the inheritance is to be governed by Punjab Land Revenue Act and the Shariat Act."
7. The learned Member then went on to observe that the question before him was; "Whether the Collector was justified in rejecting the appeal as time-barred and the Commissioner in dismissing the revision before him. Before the Collector, the petitioner gave the explanation that he did not know of the mutation till late, This ground was not accepted by the learned Collector who, while exercising the discretion, gave a decision against the petitioner. This he was legally competent to do."
8. Accordingly, the learned Member, Board of Revenue, dismissed the second revision of the petitioners, therefore, they filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court to challenge the order of the Assistant Collector sanctioning the mutation in favour of Mst. Sandho, and Mst. Amanat and the subsequent orders of the Revenue authorities dismissing their appeal and revisions. And, all these subsequent orders were challenged on the ground that they were hit by paragraph 46(A) of the Scheme. However, it is significant that the petitioner did not in their lengthy writ petition took the plea that the Collector had erred in dismissing their appeal as time-barred on 8-8-1960. Now, the failure of the petitioners to challenge this order of the Collector is fatal to their entire case, therefore in dismissing the writ petition of the petitioners, the learned Judge observed in his order of 12-12- 1973 : "In the present writ petition, the petitioners have not challenged the question of limitation on which their case was not heard on merits" The learned Judge then referred to the contention of the petitioners that Mst. Nathi was only a limited owner, but he repelled this objection with the observation "There being nothing on record to show that Mst. Nathi held the land in question as the limited owner, the Revenue Officers did not run into error to pass the orders about her inheritance. In the circum--stances I find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed with costs."
9. The petitioners, therefore, filed a petition for leave which has come up for hearing before us after a delay of nearly six years.
10. Mr. Almas Ali submitted that the orders dismissing the appeal and the t--,o revisions filed by the petitioners were void, because the inheritance mutation of Mst. Nathi could only have been sanctioned by the Rehabilitation authorities under paragraph 46(A) of the Scheme. Now, apart from the fact that it was the petitioners' own case in his first revision that the Collector, who dismissed the appeal of the petitioners was also the Deputy Rehabilita--tion Commissioner, learned counsel could not explain why the petitioners had challenged the Assistant Collector's order of 9-6-1959 in appeal and revisions under the Punjab Land Revenue Act. His only answer to our enquiry was that the appeal and revisions filed by him were not competent because they were bit by paragraph 46(A) of the Scheme. And, therefore, the orders of the Revenue authorities were void. Assuming only for the sake, of argument that the orders of the Revenue authorities were void, they had been passed on an appeal and on revisions filed by the petitioners them selves.
11. Therefore, on the rule laid down by this Court in Ghulam Mohiuddin v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (PLD 1964 SC. 829), they were debarred from challenging these orders in a writ petition.
12. Additionally, we pointed out that the Member, Board of Revenue had given a finding that the allotment in favour of Mst. Nathi had been confirmed, therefore, even, according to paragraph 46(A) of the Scheme, only the Revenue authorities had jurisdiction to sanction Mst. Nathi's mutation of inheritance. Mr. Almas Ali's only reply was that the finding of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, was erroneous but the finding relates to a question of fact. Assuming however for the sake of argument that this finding is erroneous, these and other submissions advanced by learned counsel on the merits of the case have to be rejected on the short ground that then appeal of the petitioners was dismissed as time-barred by the Collector on 8-8-1960.
13. Mr. Almas Ali, therefore, submitted that the Collector bad erred in rejecting the appeal of the petitioners as time-barred. But, the burden of making out sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal was heavily on the petitioners, and their explanation is difficult to believe. 1n any case, the question whether the explanation of the petitioners was fit to be believed was a question of 'fact within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue authorities. The Collector rejected that explanation.
14. The Commissioner agreed with the view taken by the Collector and finally, after carefully re- examining the position, the learned Member, Board of' Revenue, also agreed with the view of the Collector. Therefore, the High Court could not possibly have interfered in its limited constitutional jurisdiction with the concurrent findings of the Revenue authorities, against the petitioners. Finally, as we pointed out, the petitioners had not even cared to challenge the finding of the Collector that their appeal was time-barred, therefore, on this short ground they were not allowed to raise this objection in the High Court and for the same reason they cannot agitate this objection before us.
15. But, as they had to raise in their appeal before the Collector all the objections available to them against the mutation of 9-6-1959, sanctioned by the Assistant Collector, and as their appeal was rejected a time-barred, they are debarred from reagitating in the High Court and in this Court the objections which they have or could have taken in their appeal before the Collector.
16. In the result, the writ petition of the petitioners was without merit and was rightly dismissed, therefore, this petition is dismissed.