G. SAFDAR SHAH, J.-This leave petition, which is directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, dated 14-I1-1978, arises in the following circumstances.
2. In the year 1920, the Ruler of the former State of Chitral gave the land in dispute to the mother of the petitioner in lieu of her dower when she married the father of the petitioner, named Muhammad Nadir Shah Lai. The land in question was subsequently improved by Nadir Shah Lal and in that behalf the Ruler granted his approval vide his order dated 19-11-1920. In the year 1922, some dispute arose in connection with the widening of the watercourse, which used to irrigate the land of Nadir Shah Lal, and in that behalf the matter was referred by the Ruler to the Judicial Council of the State. After necessary enquiries having been made in the matter by the Judicial Council, it submitted its report to the Ruler who vide his order, dated 2-6-1922, decided the case in favour of Nadir Shah Lal. Subsequently another dispute was raised by the residents of the village in respect of the irrigation rights of Nadir Shah Lal, and so the dispute in question was referred by the Ruler to one Muhammad Akbar Hayat, a Member of the Judicial Council, who vide his report dated 27-7-1944 held in favour of Nadir Shah Lai, and the Ruler consequently accepted his report vide his order dated 29-7-1944. In due course certain other disputes had arisen in connection with the said land. But all these disputes were decided in favour of Nadir Shah Lal, and so it would be unnecessary to take notice of them in any detail. In so far as the present dispute is concerned, the same arose because Nadir Shah Lal sold a piece of land to one Bulani Khawaja (vide a copy of the sale deed appearing at page 49 of the petition) for Rs. 500 to which sale objection was taken by respondent No. 1 on the ground that the land was his property in view of the fact that the same had been granted to him by the Ruler. In consequence of the said dispute, respondent No. 1 instituted proceedings against the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, Chitral, who referred the matter for the consideration of the Judicial Council.
The record would show that the Members of the Judicial Council visited the site, heard all the interested parties, consequently prepared a map of the land in dispute and vide their report, dated 30-4-1973, reported their findings to the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner, in order to make doubly sure that no injustice is done to either party, again referred the matter for the consideration of the Judicial Council, who however vide its report dated 10-5-1973, maintained their previous findings and submitted their second report to the Deputy Commissioner. After receipt of the reports in question, the Deputy Commissioner summoned the parties, heard them as to their respective stands and consequently vide his order, dated 31-3-1975, recorded the following decision :- "Land measuring 5 Chakaram is hereby allotted to Aslee in Plot No. 3 on the basis of grant of ruler.
Plot No. 3 is a sketch prepared by J. C. Available on page 78. Noorul-Ain and his nephew Hamidul Rehman alleged that 5 Cbakaram of his land granted to Noorul-Ain by shujaul Mulk should be restored to him. Officer Incharge has agreed with the view 'point decision, 5 Chakaram land in Plot No. 3 is hereby allotted to Abdul Ghaffar son of Noorul-Ain. In case Noorul-Ain has other heirs also then the said land would be distributed between his heirs in proportionate ratio on the basis of Muslim Law of inheritance. Mir Rais Khan has built a shop in Plot No. 2. He claims that he has built the shop on a common pasture. Defendant claims that it is his property and he (Mir Rais) should pay rent to him. Mir Rais Khan should pay a rent of Rs. 5 per month to Sardar Ahmad Khan. This rent would be effective from 1/4/75 onwards. Bulbul Khawaja has built a shop in Plot No. 2. He has purchased the land for the shop from Sardar Ahmad. This is confirmed. Shop will be in the possession and ownership of Bulbul Khawaja. Abdul Murad son of Abdul Marian has produced an order of the Ex-Ruler granting him 5 Chakaram land in Plot No. 1. But he admitted in the Court that except for a brief 5 years period, he has not taken care to cultivate the land for the last 50 to 55 yearn. Sardar Ahmad on the other hand produced another order of the Ex-Ruler to the effect that nobody should bother him (Sardar) and that he has brought the land under irrigation and improved it. Abdul Murad did not bother to advance any claim for 50 years or more He is therefore, penalised. He is hereby awarded only 25 Chakaram land. This will be the ownership of the rightful heirs of Abdul Manan, to be decided by S. D. A. However the S. D: A. Will take care not to allot this 2'5 Chakaram of land in Plot No. 1 to hears of Abdul Manan, within the radius of 10 Chakaram length of the houses built by Sardar Ahmad, in other words his land 2'5 Chakaram would not be nearer to the houses of Sardar by a minimum 10 Chakaram. People of Shaghore Mori contended that the lands (which they failed to specify precisely) were their pasture lands. Sardar Ahmad on the other hand argued that the lands were his legitimate property, land given to him by the Ruler, through valid decrees still available on file. Having considered all relevant material the following order is made Plot No. 1 minimum 2'5 Chakaram of land going to the heirs of Abdul Manan is confirmed in the ownership of Sardar Ahmad, defendant. Plot No. 2, minus shop of Bulani Khawaja is confirmed in ownership of Sardar Ahmad, the defendant. Plot No. 3 minus 10 Chakaram of land (belongs to Noorul-Ain/heirs and Aslee Khan's two brothers) is confirmed or property of Sardar Altmad Kharr, the defendant. Plot No. 4 minus hotel (properly of Sardar) is hereby allotted to people of Mori Payeen Shaghore. The internal distribution of the Plotamongst the people would be made by the S. D. A. And Tehsildar, with a period of 4 weeks. This distribution will be done on the basis of some objective criteria to be evolved by the S. D. A. Himself. Plot No. 5 is hereby allotted to the people of Mori Payeen Shaghore. Distribution amongst the people will be made by the S. D. A. On the basis of some objective criteria to be evolved by him. Mastuj Road passing through the disputed area is currently being widened, lard will be deemed to have been acquired from the people whose claims, on ownership have been confirmed or decided as above."
3. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Bilal, the learned counsel for the petitioner. His only grievance is that the Deputy Commissioner has erroneously and arbitrarily disagreed with the report submitted to him by the Judicial Council with the result that the petitioner was deprived by him of his ownership right in the land in dispute which he had enjoyed since the year 1920. The learned counsel contended that whereas, in respect of land comprised in Plot No. 3, the finding recorded by the Judicial Council was that since late Noorul-Ain had abandoned the 5 Chakaram of land therein, his son and grandson would have no right to reassert the claim of ownership in that behalf, the Deputy Commissioner nevertheless allowed to the heirs of Noorul-Ain the said 5 Chakaram of land in disregard of the fact that the said land had subsequently been granted to respondent Aslee Khan by the Ruler himself. In other words, the objection of the learned counsel is against the double allotment of 5 Chakaram of land in Plot No. 3. But we have not been able to agree with his contention. In the first place the learned counsel has not been able to show us as to under what legal provision Deputy Commissioner had exercised his jurisdiction in the matter or else which law he had violated so as to entitle the petitioners to have invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. When we repeatedly questioned him in that behalf, all that the learned counsel replied was that the petitioner had remained possession of the land in dispute since the year 1920, and so the Deputy Commissioner should not have interfered with his rights. The short answer to this contention is that if the High Court, or for that matter this Court, were to sit in appeal over the decision of the Deputy Commis--sioner, perhaps the contention urged by the learned counsel would be tenable. But in the exercise of writ jurisdiction, the contention urged by him is evidently misconceived. '
Quite apart from this position, the learned counsel has evidently miscon--ceived the nature of the report submitted to him by the Judicial Council, and the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner in the matter. It is evident that if the Judicial Council had the jurisdiction to decide the disputes between the parties herein, the very proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner would not have been instituted in the first place, nor would the Deputy Commissioner appoint the Judicial Council only to investigate the matter and in that behalf submit its report. We are, therefore, satisfied that it was the Deputy Commissioner alone who had the power to decide the disputed questions raised before him in the proceedings, and not the Judicial Council.
4. Furthermore, the learned counsel does not seem to be aware that after the merger of the former State of Chitral in the Province of N.-W. F. P., the Provincial Government has empowered the Deputy Commissioner to deal with all such disputes on its behalf. In other words, in exercising jurisdiction in the present case, the Deputy Commissioner was acting on behalf of the Provincial Government, therefore, the decision recorded by him could not be questioned in writ proceedings, unless it was shown that he had violated) some legal provision. Not only this but the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is entirely equitable and proper, as also that by the order in question the petitioner has substantially benefited, as no interference has been made in respect of his proved rights in the suit land. It is true that in respect of Plot No. 3, he did not fully endorse the report of the judicial Council, but again his order in that behalf is based on the considera--tions of enquiry inasmuch as by allotting 5 Chakaram of land to the heirs of Noorul-Ain, the Deputy Commissioner was simply implementing the spirit of the order of the Ruler himself who had allotted the said land to Noorul-Ain.
In this view of the matter, the judgment of the High Court is unexceptionable. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.