1. ' Ibrahim and 5 others have impugned the order of the Settlement Commissioner (Land), dated 28th March, 1973 in this petition under Article 201 of thy Interim Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
2. This is the second round of litigation. The first round concluded when Writ Petition (W. P. No, 365-R of 1970) filed by the petitioners was disposed of by Muhammad Siddique, J. (as he then was) with the observation that the petitioners were condemned unheard. Case was sent back to the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, for fresh decision in accordance with law after giving notice to the parties concerned. Thereafter the impugned order was passed.
2. ' The relevant facts, according to the petitioners are that one Mst. Amina widow of Nizam alongwith petitioner No, 1 and the predecessor-in-interest of the other petitioners were joint Khevat Dar in village Bhagsar, Tehsil Sarsa, District Hissar. These persons migrated to Pakistan in 1947. In 1952 Mst.
3. Amina was allotted land in village Sanda, Tehsil Mailsi, District Multan. She died in 1953. On 8th September, 1953 mutation of inheritance was sanctioned. This was in favour of Mst. Roshan her daughter from Rukna her first husband. It is alleged that she was limited owner.
4. ' Petitioners filed appeal against the order dated 8th September, 1953. This was accepted. Case was remanded vide order dated 30th December, 1953. Thereafter a fresh mutation was sanctioned.
5. Against this Mst. Roshan daughter of Mst. Amina filed an appeal. It was decided on 6th February, 1957. This time the petitioners filed a revision petition before the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner who by order dated 3rd January, 1958 upset the order of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 6th February, 1957 and the petitioners were held to be entitled to three-fourth share of the property of Nizam deceased being collaterals while one-fourth was to go to the heirs of Mst. Amina including Mst. Roshan her daughter from Nizam. The said order was not challenged with the result that mutation was sanctioned accordingly.
6. ' The petitioners alleged thaf respondent No 1 manoeuvred to place a fictitious order dated 6th February, 1957 in which his name was shown as one of the collateral of Nizam on the basis of which he claimed share in his heritance. When the petitioners came to know of this development, they filed a review application, before the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, Multan. In the review the stance of the petitioners was that Umar Din was not collateral of Nizam. He was not even in existence. This application was disposed of on 22nd March, 1958. Nothing happened further till 1969 when respondent No, 1 again pressed his claim as one of the collaterals of Nizam. The then Deputy Commissioner ordered an inquiry into this. Evidence was recorded and it was found that not only certain officials of the Department were responsible for forgery and tampering with the record but the petitioners were also involved in that. The enquiry report has been placed on record as Annexure `G' to this petition.
7. ' On 1st January. 1970 respondent No, 1 through Umra respondent No, 3 filed a miscellaneous application before the Commissioner, Multan Division. This petition was treated as a revision petition, by the Commissioner and was decided on 23rd February, 1970. The said order was challenged by means of Writ Petition No, 365-R of 1970 in which the petitioners took the plea of audi alteram partem. As already observed by me, this petition was accepted and the case remanded.
8. Thereafter the order dated 28th March, 1973 was passed.
9. ' Now the petitioners have not only challenged the order dated 28th March, 1973 but also the enquiry report dated 1st December, 1969.
10. ' Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that in the enquiry report the petitioners were blamed for tampering with the record and replacing the original order by order dated 6th February.
11. 1957. It was submitted that the enquiry proceedings were conducted without notice to the petitioners. It was one-sided show. Learned counsel submitted that the enquiry report was arbitrary and unilateral. He took up the plea of mala fides. For the foregoing reasons it was argued that as all the subsequent decisions are based on the enquiry report. Therefore, those were not legally maintainable.
12. ' Great stress was laid by the learned counsel on the application moved by respondent No, 1 after a lapse of ten years. It was contended that there was no explanation for such an inordinate delay.
13. Learned counsel submitted that if at all the claim of the respondent was genuine then he would not have kept quiet for such a long time.
14. ' Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that right from the very beginning, there was evidence on record that Umra was a collateral of Nizam. This position was duly accepted by the petitioners. Therefore, they cannot now challenge the same successfully.
15. ' It was next submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. But as a matter of fact, the petitioners have simply challenged the finding of fact. Learned counsel argued that findings of fact are not open to any exception in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. It was exclusively within the domain of the Settlement Authorities to hold an enquiry in order to find out how, by whom and why the official record had been tampered with.
16. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is correct that was after a lapse of ten years that an application was moved by he respondent which delay has not been' properly explained but I don't think this per se is good ground to hold that the impugned order was without lawful authority. Similarly, the fact that the petitioners were not summoned and they were not made to join the enquiry proceedings does not render the impugned order to be without lawful authority. The reason being that they were given full opportunity to plead their case before the Settlement Commissioner. In spite of that they failed to convince him about the entitlement and right. Although they were not joined in the enquiry proceedings by Enquiry Officer but they could prove before the Settlement Commissioner that the enquiry report was biased and was the result of mala fides. Even B this was not done. I have not come across anything in the impugned order so as to hold that this is without lawful authority. It is a detailed one. The Settlement Commissioner considered the pros and cons of the matters. He dealt with the history of the case right from the beginning and then gave certain findings of fact which I am not inclined to reopen at this stage in the writ jurisdiction.
17. ' The enquiry report is dated 1st December, 1969. This could not be challenged by means of this petition in the year 1973. The result is that this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.