' This is a revision petition (wrongly termed as an appeal) against the order dated 10-3-1970 passed by the Additional Commissioner and Settlement Commissioner (Land), Hyderabad, whereby he rejected the petitioner's appeal in respect of his share to the extent of 0-9-4 in serial Nos. 19, 31/1, 31/5, 12/2 and 29 and 0-7-10 in serial No, 31/3 Deh Nirah, Taluka Mehar, District Dadu.
2. The facts of the case are that serial Nos. 19, 31/1, 31/5, 12/2 and 29 of the Deh were allotted to claimants Mst. Kaniz Fatima and Habibullah Khan in 1962. Mutation was also effected in the revenue record. The petitioner submitted an application (date not known) to the Deputy Collector, Dadu stating that there was Muslim share in the land and it may be excluded from the evacuee pool. The Deputy Collector, Dadu vide his order dated-1741-1967 excluded the Muslim share to the following extent from the evacuee pool (0 0-9-4 share from serial Nos. 19, 31/1, 31/5, 12/2, 29, 18 and 418 ;
(ii) 0-7-10 share in serial No, 31/3, and
(iii) 0-8-0 share in serial No, 432.
' One Allandino had purchased the lands from the claimant and he preferred an appeal against the above order of the Deputy Collector to the Deputy Commissioner, which was accepted by the Deputy Commissioner, Dudu, vide his order dated 13-5-1969 and the order of the Deputy Collector was set aside. The Deputy Commissioner further held that according to the entries in record only Muhammad Ishaque and Mst. Noor Khatoon held 0-1-8 and 0-1-11 share respectively in the above land and that share only be excluded from the evacuee pool. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which was rejected by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad vide the impugned order except that in additional to the Muslim share declared by the Deputy Commissioner, Dadu. 0-0-8 share from serial No, 31/3 was also declared as Muslim-share by the Additional Commissioner and Settlement Commissioner (L) Hyderabad.
3. The petitioner contended that according to original entries in the old V. F. VII, there was Muslim share in the disputed S. Nos. To the extent determined by the Deputy Collector, Dadu, vide his order dated 17-11-1967 but the-pages had been deliberately misplaced by one Muhammad Yaqoob Tapedar to harm him.
4.- The Naib-Tehsildar produced Evacuee Register to show that the disputed land had been included in evacuee pool.
5, The Supervising Tapedar stated that the missing pages of the old V. F. VII are not traceable but contended that new V. F. VII had been prepared on the basis of entries of old record and that the entries of the pages now missing might be available at that time and might have been taken into consideration while preparing the new V. F. VII.
6. I have perused the record V. F. VII pertaining to the year 1937 and onwards, V. F. VI for the year 1937-47. Some pages from V. F. VII containing entries Nos. 390 to 580 are missing. Entries Nos. 455 and 456 of old V. F. VII do not seem to have been transcribed in the new V. F. VII.
7. I have considered' the case. The petitioner is unable to substantiate his claim by any documentary evidence that he had share in th disputed land. The verbal versions of the petitioner are of no avail. It I a fact that some pages from the old V. F. VII are missing but new V. F. VII is duly authenticated by the Deputy Collector and the entries made there have to be relied upon and the presumption that the missing pages might be available at the time the new V. F. VII had been maintained cannot be ignored. The disputed land had already been included in Evacuee pool and A allotted in settlement of a claim. According to section 22 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957, any person claiming an right or interest in the property treated by the Custodian or Rehabilitation Authority as evacuee property has to prefer a claim to the Custodian that the property is not evacuee property. According to section 41 of the Act, no Revenue Court has any jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the Custodian is empowered by or under that Act to determine. The Revenue Court has, therefore, no jurisdiction to look into the question whether the property is or is not evacuee property.
8. 0-0-8 share from serial No, 31/1 was declared as Muslim property vide the impugned order and obviously the Additional Commissioner might 'have done it in exercise of his powers as Settlement Commissioner (L), Hyderabad Division as this designation has also been mentioned in the impugned order.
I would have liked to look into the case in my capacity as Chief Settlement Commissioner, but I find that provisional powers which were vested to Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 19 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 were withdrawn vide Displaced Persons Laws Amendment Ordinance, 1964 and consequently I have no jurisdiction to look into the matter even on Settlement side.
9. In view of the above, the revision petition is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
10. Parties be informed accordingly.
011