ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, .J.----This order will depose of W. P. Nos. 691 of 1974, (2) 1059 of 1974, (3)
1180 of 1974, (4) 1195 of 1974, (5) 1219 of 1974, (6) 1220 of 1974, (7) 1221 of 1974, (8) 1408 of 1974, (9) 1432 of 1974, (10) 1434 of 1974, (11) 1507/S of 1974, (12) 2280 of 1974, (13) 1008 of 1975, (14) 953 of 1976, (15)
245/11 of 1980, (16) 253/11 of 1980, (17) Cr. O. 163/W of 1980 in Writ Petition 245/11 of 1980, (18) 3853 of 1980 and (19) 502/11 of 1981, as these raise common question.
2. In almost all the cases the Assistant Commissioner (Saddar), Lahore has directed registration of cases against the petitioners on the allegations that allotments of land were obtained by fraud, or, record forged, etc. Etc. Or abetted in the commission of the crimes.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, is a complete code and the Assistant Commissioner does not figure thereunder. The Act, too, has been repealed since Ist July, 1974 by Act XIV of 1975 and the impugned orders were passed thereafter: The Special Police which started investigation in some cases has no jurisdiction. The orders are mala fide. This Court has jurisdiction to quash registration of a case, or, the investigation. Muhammad Sadiq and 9 others v. The State and another (PLD 1969 SC 418), Shah Nawaz Begum v. Honourable Judge of High Court etc. (PLD 1971 SC 677), Noor Muhammad v.
S. H. O. Qadir--pur (1981 P Cr. L J 1259) and Syed Fayyaz Hussain Hkmdani v. The State (1982 P Cr. L J 726), were referred.
4. Learned Advocate-General referred to Article 9(4)(d) of the Provi--sional Constitution Order, 1981 and submitted that this Court has no jurisdic--tion to interfere in the registration or investigation of the cases.
5. Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad Advocate for the Settlement Depart--ment referred to Malik Ghulam Ahmad v. Haji Muhammad Yousaf and others (PLD 1976 SC 271) and Muhammad Hayat v.
The Chief Settlement & Rehabilitation Commissioner and another (PLD 1970 Lab. 679), to contend that this Court cannot interfere in the impugned orders.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioners on the cases quoted by them is not quite apt. In view of the nature of the allegations, disputed facts; and especially absence of original or authentic record, and the law declared by the learned Supreme Court of Pakistan in the latest case of Malik Ghulam Ahmad referred to by the learned counsel for the Settlement Department, we are not in a position, to interfere in the impugned orders. Therefore, the above titled Constitutional petitions fail and are dismissed with costs. Criminal Original calls for no action. This too is dismissed.