MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.-The petitioners purchased the land in dispute in village Chirta Wata Dakhali Gundi in Tehsil and District Mianwali. They were non-owners in the village. Amir Abdullah filed a suit to pre-empt the sale on 6-1-1972. On 6-5-1972 the present petitioners filed a written statement and took up the plea that they were displaced persons from Chashma Barrage and the land purchased by them in Mianwali District was not subject to pre-emption as they had a certificate dated 18-4- 1972 issued by the Commis--sioner in their possession, which testified to the fact that the petitioners were such displaced person. The plaintiff denied these allegations, and applied to the Commissioner on 2-5-1972 challenging this certificate itself. On 12-5-1972 the Commissioner sent the certificate to the Deputy Commissioner to hold an inquiry. He also directed the Deputy Commissioner to withdraw the certifi--cate till he was satisfied that the petitioners had inherited the land of their grandfather. The petitioners felt aggrieved and moved the Board of Revenue that, in turn, directed the Commissioner to examine the full facts after holding an inquiry.
2. The Additional Deputy Commissioner found as a result of the inquiry held by him that the petitioners owned 30 marlas of land in the abadi of village Chitta Wata Dakhali which had been acquired for the purpose of constructing the Chashma Barrage. The learned Commissioner, therefore, held this certificate to be in order
3. The opposite-party moved the High Court by way of writ petition No. 2641 of 1976. A learned Single Judge of that Court quashed the order of the Commissioner dated 27-7-1976 and gave a direction that the matter should be re-examined. Hence this civil petition for special leave to appeal.
4. It has been submitted before us by the learned counsel that the question which came up before the High Court in the writ petition was whether A the petitioners were affected by the construction of Chashma Barrage and were, therefore displaced persons. An inquiry having been held by the Revenue Authorities and a concurrent finding of fact having been made regarding this point it was not open to the High Court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction to have re-opened this pre-eminent question of fact prima facie the submission made by the learned counsel has force.
Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted against the impugned order subject to the payment of Rs.
2,000 as security. The appeal shall be heard on the existing record but the parties shall be at liberty to file additional documents.