1. ' SARDAR ABDUL HAMEED KHAN, J.---This writ petition has been filed under section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974.
2. ' The precise facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the land comprising Khasra No, 491-old, 492-old measuring 42 Kanals, 15 Marlas situated in Village Dhannan Tehsil and District Kotli was allotted to the father of the petitioners and Pro forma-respondents No, 12 and 13 as refugees in the year 14-10-1951. It is stated that the petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 are living in Pakistan for livelihood, and petitioners Nos. 5 to 10 and Pro forma-respondents Nos.12 and 13 are living far from the land in dispute after their marriages and all the legal heirs are uneducated. It is also stated that after the allotment of suit land, the father of petitioners gave the same to Pro forma-respondent No,10 on "Ghalla Battai" and in 1963 the same land was given to the father of Pro forma-respondent No, 11 and after the death of the father, the Pro forma-respondent No, 11 is cultivating the disputed land on "Ghana Battai". It is alleged that the respondent No, 5 on 18-10-2001 has moved an application against Pro forma-respondent No, 11 for cutting the trees before the Revenue Assistant. The Pro forma-respondent No,11 told the petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 about this litigation on 29-3-2002 and after getting the copies, they came to know that the land in dispute was allotted to respondents Nos. 5 to 9 without adopting legal process and without hearing the petitioners. The petitioners moved an application for cancellation of the allotment of respondents Nos. 5 to 9 before the Custodian, who accepted the same vide his order dated 14-11-200 and the file was sent to Revenue Assistant Kotli for investigation on four points. The Revenue Assistant after hearing the parties sent the file to respondent No, 1 on 28-10-2003. It is further submitted that the respondents No, 1 dismissed the application of petitioners though a baseless and fictitious order dated 14-4-2004, while ignoring the ' inquiry made by Revenue Assistant Kotli and the order passed by the Ex-Custodian. The petitioners prayed that the order passed by respondent No,1 /Custodian dated 14-4-2004 and new allotment permit made in favour of respondent No,1 dated 12-6-2004 land measuring 16 Kanals, 19 Marlas and the allotment permit of respondent No, 6 land measuring 10 Kanals situated in Village Dhannan Tehsil and District Kotli may kindly be set aside.
3. ' The learned counsel for petitioners argued that the land in dispute was allotted to the father of the petitioners after fulfilling all the requirements made under law. The learned counsel further argued that the petitioners were not summoned and heard at the time of subsequent allotments. The learned counsel argued that the subsequent allotments were made with the collusion of the officials without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The learned counsel submitted that the order of respondent No,1 and subsequent allotment are void, illegal and without lawful authority. The learned counsel argued the case at length forcefully and zealously and concluded that the petitioners have been condemned unheard and the learned Custodian relying on only presence of one of the petitioners i.e, Abdul Hameed treated it the knowledge of all the petitioners thus erred in mistake of fact as well as mistake of law. He further argued that the impugned order is not in consonance with the order of predecessor of the respondent No, 1, which is not tenable in the eyes of law. He also very forcefully explained his version regarding subsequent allotment and prayed for cancellation of allotments of respondents.
4. ' Mr Khalid Mahmood Khokhar. Advocate the learned counsel for the petitioner while presenting his well-prepared case tried to persuade us to consider the point of limitation in the light of his submissions and documents referred in the petition. In support of his contention the learned counsel referred the following case with summary of cases jotted down on a separate paper;
(1) 1994 M LD 2195;
(2) 1984 CLC 2080;
(3) 1993 SCR 39;
(4) PLD 1981 AJK-21;
(5) 2005 SCR 80 and same unreported judgment of State jurisdiction.
5. ' The learned counsel lastly prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and sought declaration that the impugned order has been passed without lawful authority which is of no legal effect.
6. ' While controverting the augments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, Raja Raffiullah Sultani Advocate, the learned counsel for respondents argued at length and concluded that the order passed by respondent No, 1 is based on sound and strong reasonings, it does not require any interference by this Court. The learned counsel further argued that the impugned order was passed in a legal fashion, therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed. The learned counsel for respondents placed reliance on the following case-law:-
(1) 2001 CLC 1149;
(2) 1992 SCR 100;
(3) 2011 CLC 1594;
(4) 1999 YLR 1253
(5) 2009 CLC 1570 ' After hearing the counsel for the parties, have gone through the record of the case in the light of impugned order and respective arguments of the counsel for the and also considered the case- law referred.
7. ' The learned Custodian (respondent No,1) has discussed the detailed facts of the case since first allotment in 1951 and subsequent allotment in 1965 and thereafter a lengthy litigation upto the Supreme Court and the appearance of the one of the petitioner Abdul Hameed himself and on behalf of other before other official respondents since 1999. The points agitated by the learned counsel for petitioners pertains to certain facts which need detailed inquiry and in constitutional jurisdiction, this court cannot embark upon an inquiry of facts like omission to sue and commission of fraud etc. As it was observed by the apex Court in Manzoor Ahmed Butt and 7 others v.
8. Custodian of Evacuee Property and 7 others reported as 1999 SCR 439:--
(a) Finding of fact ' Finding of fact recorded by a tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction is ordinarily sacrosanct---Can be set aside in exceptional circumstances.
(c) Writ ---Finding of interpolation and forgery cannot be recorded in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
9. In the light of above dictum of apex Court I am not inclined to embark upon an inquiry of facts as agitated by the petitioners and repudiated by the contesting respondents and the finding of fact recorded by the respondent No,1 and the conclusion drawn by the learned Custodian being a Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction which are ordinarily sacrosanct and no exceptional circumstances are involved in the case. The minute perusal of these findings shows that no interference is warranted by this Court. The case-law referred by the learned counsel for the parties need not to discuss/ reproduce.
10. ' The upshot of the above discussion is that the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.