1. ' The petitioner challenges the validity of orders passed by Settlement Authorities accepting the claim of respondent No, 3 to the transfer of agricultural lands situated at Tando Mir Ali, Taluka Mirwah in Khairpur District, which were settled in lieu of claim of one Chiraghuddin, originally resident of Village Bhuchar, Tehsil Torantaran, District Amritsar, an agreed area. The dispute is between the petitioner and respondent No, 3 with regard to the identity of the claimant in whose favour the disputed lands were settled. Whereas it is the case of the petitioner that the claimant displaced person was Chiraghuddin son of Leekal who came to Pakistan and died here and who left surviving him his widow Mst. Fazal Bibi and daughter the present petitioner, it is asserted by respondent No, 3 that the claimant was Chiraghuddin son of Saihal or Saigol who never came to Pakistan but had died in India and who was his grandfather. It is alleged by the petitioner that respondent No, 3 was an employee of her father deceased Chiraghuddin and taking undue advantage of the ignorance of her mother and herself fraudulently represented before the authorities that the Fard-i-Haqiat was of Chiraghuddin son of Saigol, whose grandson he claimed to be. It is further the case of the petitioner that she and Mst. Fazali, since deceased filed their claim some time in 1962 when they came to know about the fraud committed by the respondent No, 3.
2. They filed application before the Mukhtiarkar, Mirwah and the Agricultural Rehabilitation Commissioner/Assistant Settlement Commissioner. The matter was also referred to Enforcement Police.
3. ' The Settlement Commissioner, Headquarter, Lahore as delegatee of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 10 of the Displaced Persons (L. S.) Act, 1958 summoned the parties and recorded their evidence but before the orders could be passed all the Deputy Commissioners and Additional Deputy Commissioner under section 10 aforesaid Act, and the case was transferred to Additional. Deputy Commissioner/Addl. Settlement Commissioner Khairpur, who by his impugned order dated 21-10-1970 dismissed the petitioner's application upholding the order of Mukhtiarkar, accepting the claim of the respondent No, 3 as having become final and directing the petitioner to seek remedy in Civil Court,The petitioner, therefore, filed suit in the Court of Civil Judge, First Class, Khairpur, for declaration that claim of Muhammad Din to be heir of Chiraghuddin son of Keekal was wrong and petitioner was the sole heir of Chiraghuddin and entitled to the land in suit. The plaint was rejected on objection of Mohammad Din under Order VII. Rule 11, C. P. C. On the ground that suit was barred by provisions of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The appeal filed by petitioner was also dismissed.
4. ' The petitioner then filed another application before the Deputy Commissioner/Addl. Settlement Commissioner (Land) Khairpur, alleging that the land in dispute had been obtained by respondent No, 3 by fraud. The application was dismissed as barred by res judicata on 18-6-1975.
5. ' The petitioner has made the following main contentions :
(1) That the Fard-i-Haqiat is in the name of Chiraghuddin son of Leekal and therefore, the orders of the Settlement Authorities in favour of respondent No, 3 are all illegal.
(2) That it was wrongly held by the Additional Commissioner (Land), Khairpur in his order dated 21- 10.1970 that the decision in favour of respondent No, 3 was final and could not be questioned before him.
(3) That the principle of res judicata did not apply as the earlier order was itself void and the impugned order amounts to refusal to exercise jurisdiction as the questions of fraud and misrepresentation were not decided.
6. ' The dispute as already stated has occurred with regard to verification of the claim of Chiraghuddin and the reading of the Fard-i-Haqiat. The claim was filed first by respondent No, 3 and was verified and settled in the name of Chiraghuddin son of Sehkal (also known as Sahgol) who was a resident of village Bhochar Kalan Tehsil Torantaran District Amritsar, which according to him had devolved on him. It was the case of respondent No 3 that Chiraghuddin who was his grandfather had in fact died in India. The claim was verified on 11-4-1957 and land in dispute was settled in 1960. If as is the case of petitioner that Chiraghdin son of Leekal had died after coming to Pakistan in 1948 there should have been a claim filed by him or on his behalf. The Ragistration of Claims (Displaced Act, 1956 in section 7 thereof provides for appeal against the decision with regard to verification. No such appeal was filed by or on behalf of the petitioner. The alleged misreading or interpolation of the Fard-i-Haqiat is not clear from the photostat copy thereof produced by the petitioner which is much like the photostat copy of it produced by respondent No, 3, on which the Settlement of land in dispute took place. It is very difficult and doubtful to say whether in the name of father of Chiraghuddin the first letter even in the copy produced by the petition is "J" and not as it looks more like ',r' and the only difference is that the sign '6' is not visible in the copy produced by the petitioner although it is so visible in the copy produced by respondent No, 3.
7. In any case the question was one of inheritance which could be and was decided under Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme and as was held in Civil appeal Ahmed Din v. Mohomed Shafi and others (1) by the Supreme Court such matters are within exclusive jurisdiction of Rehabilitation Authority. Inheritance of deceased Chiraghdin was decided by Mukhtiarkar and Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner on 28-5-1960 in favour of respondent No, 3 as grandson of deceased Chiraghdin. No appeal or revision was preferred by any one.
8. ' The learned Additional Deputy Commissioner/Addl. Settlement Commissioner (Land) Mirwah Sub- Division at Khairpur pertinently remarked that the matter under dispute only pertains to heirship which had already been decided ten years before by the Mukhtiarkar and A. R. C. Mirwah and there was no documentary evidence on record relevant to the fact of Mohomed Din not being the heir.
9. The petitioner states that she came to know of the fraud only when she and Fazal Bibi filed claim in 1962. No explanation has been given as to why if Chiraghuddin had come to Pakistan he or after his death, Fazal Bibi or the petitioner did not file the claim till 1962. The explanation is all the more important since in notification No 7. 2 (25)/58-Clms, dated 5th August, 1958 published in Gazette of 15th August, 1958 the Central Government amended the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons)
10. Rules, 1955, extending the last date for filing of claims till 30th September, 1958. The learned Additional, Deputy Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Khairpur, therefore, rightly held that the decision in respect of inheritance against which there had been no challenge for ten years should be considered as final. In the same order it was further remarked that the Enforcement Police too did not find any substantial evidence against the respondent. The report of the Enforcement Police was presumbly available at that time and presumption can therefore be drawn that if the papers had not been lost the case of the petitioner would not have received any support. The only point in support of the case of the petitioner is about the reference made to the Central Record Room Lahore and report made on 13.6-1975 clarifying that the name Chiraghuddin son of Leekal appears on the Fard-i-Haqiat. However there is no indication as to whether the report is based on visual inspection of the writing or some more solid grounds. The Mukhtiarkar/and Asstt.
11. Rehabilitation Commissioner, who determined the inheritance after holding an inquiry and verified the claim after recording evidence is presumed to have correctly decided the matter.
12. It has been contended by Mr. Saed Zahir Hassan the learned counsel for respondent No, 3 that prior to the presenting of the instant petition the remedies provided by law were not availed of the appeal provided by section 7 of the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons), 1956, was not made after the final verification of the claim of respondent No,
3. Again when the petitioner's application before the Addl Dy. Commissioner Settlement Commissioner, Khairpur, claiming that the verification of the claim in the name of Chiraghuddin son of Saigol was fraudulent was dismissed, the petitioner should have filed revision against the order under section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 which was not done and instead a civil suit was filed. It is further contended that even if wrong directive in the order was given to have the matter decided by a civil Court, the petitioner was not obliged to follow it in view of judicial decisions on the point including that in Civil Revision of Mst. Sughran and others v. Rahmat Ali (2). It is therefore, further
(1) PLD1971SC762 (2) PLD 1965 (W. P.) Lah. 580 ' contended that the fact that remedies provided by law were not adopted in the year 1970 but the instant petition was filed in 1975, shows that there is laches on the part of the petition. The contention is well based.
13. ' It is also pointed out that sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 are with regard to cancellation of allotment obtained by fraud etc. And not for substituting another name of claimant, and therefore, proper course was to file objections against the verification of claim.
14. ' For the reasons given and in the circumstances stated no case is made out for interference with the orders of the Settlement Authorities and the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.