1. S. A. RAHMAN, J.-On a re-verification of the entitlement of the petitioners, it was found that the land in the possession of the petitioners was in excess of their entitlement.. The excess land was taken away under an order of the Assistant Rehabilita--tion Commissioner (Land). His order was challenged before the superior departmental authorities and the only question raised was, whether he had the jurisdiction to pass such an order. Eventually, the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commis--sioner held that the order in question was with jurisdiction. The petitioners challenged the departmental orders by a petition for a writ in the High Court of West Pakistan but were unsuccessful. This is a petition on their behalf for Special Leave to Appeal.
2. Mr. Almas Ali, on behalf of the petitioners, tried to argue before us that in fact the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land) had, no jurisdiction to pass the order that he had. He however, concedes that the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, the final authority, whose order was impugned before the High Court, had such jurisdiction and he had apparently upheld the action taken in taking away the excess land from the petitioners. The point therefore, loses substance.
3. The learned Counsel next contended that in fact the petitioners were not in possession of any excess land beyond their entitlement. This was a question of fact which should have been agitated before the departmental authorities them--selves. But there is nothing to show in the documents on the file that the point was raised before any of the appropriate authorities. Indeed, the order of the Deputy Settlement Com---missioner (Land) would itself indirectly indicate that there was in fact an excess over the entitlement. Be that as it may, the question could not be raised for the first time in writ jurisdiction in the High Court.
4. The petition has no force and is hereby dismissed.