1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The petitioners, who belong to the Utmankhel tribe, feeling dissatisfied with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dir, dated 29th September, 1972 under paragraph 3 of the Settlement of Immovable Property Disputes (Dir & Swat) Regulation 1972, challenged the same in appeal. The said appeal, however, was dismissed by Mr. Sher Afzal Khan, Officer on Special Duty, Government of N.-W.F.P., Home & Tribal Affairs Department vide order, dated 9th October, 1973. The last-mentioned order was challenged in revision but this effort also failed and the aforesaid revision petition was dismissed by the Chairman, Federal Land Commission, Islamabad vide order, dated 1-6-1976.
2. Although this should have been the end of the matter the petitioners made another effort, after the promulgation of President Order 13 of 1980 for getting the orders passed against them set aside by moving the Chairman Tribunal Land Disputes, Dir, Swat and Chitral through review petition No. 353 of 1982. This petition was dismissed by the Chairman (Mr. Justice (Retd) Qaiser Khan) on 8-4-1982 as barred by time. His order was challenged before the Peshawar High Court through a writ petition but a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the same vide order, dated 10-3-1985 on the view that no good ground was shown why the order of the Chairman (Mr. Justice (Retd) Qaisar Khan) dismissing the review petition on the ground of limitation was bad in law. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. We entirely agree with the High Court that no ground existed for interfering with the order of Mr. Justice (Retd) Qaiser Khan in writ jurisdiction. The question of entertaining or not entertaining a time-barred review petition by condoning or not condoning the delay lay entirely within the discretion of the Chairman, Tribunal Land Disputes, Dir-Swat & Chitral. The said discretion not having been shown to have been exercised illegally, capriciously or perversely was not open to review in writ jurisdiction. The writ petition was, accordingly, rightly dismissed and, therefore, no ground exists for interference by this Court.
4. This petition is dismissed.