SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-- Leave to appeal was granted in three separate petitions arising out of the two judgments of the Lahore High Court, dated 4-7-1984 dismissing three separate constitutional petitions filed by each of the appellants thereby upholding the order of Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated 4-7-1984 dismissing an application under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), filed by Akhtar Alam appellant and protecting the allotment made on 30th of September, 1963 (proposal) and 13th of December, 1963 (confirmation) in favour of one Mst. Shah Begum, the predecessor-in-interest of contesting respondent Dr. Israr Khan.
2. In village Topi, Tehsil and District Rawalpindi, there was joint ownership of the evacuees, Kartar Singh, Raghbir Singh and Baldeo Singh. On the 20th of May, 1947, Mehtab Khan (appellant in C.A.
867/84) purchased, by registered sale-deed, an area of 282 Kanals 19 Marlas out of it. Another area of 306 Kanals 19 Marlas was purchased by Noor Muhammad, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants in C.A. 865/84. 24 Kanals were purchased in similar fashion by Ghulam Haider Jandoli which is not in contest. Mutations giving effect to these sales were also attested. During the year 1954-55, the partition of joint Khata was carried out. The Enforcement Staff examined these sales and advised the vendees to obtain confirmation of the sales in their favour under section 20 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957 from the Custodian as the sales had been effected after the 1st of March, 1947. The vendees made the necessary applications and sought condonation of the delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Deputy Custodian dismissed their application as time-barred on 19-11-1960 and the Custodian also dismissed it on the 9th of December, 1960. They sought review of the order of the Custodian but failed. Thereafter Mehtab Khan and Noor Muhammad filed direct appeals in the Supreme Court under Article 160 of the 1956 Constitution. While these appeals were pending, they applied to the Central Government for exempting the land in dispute under section 55 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. The Central Government did not agree to the exemption but referred to the Custodian for review and to enable the Custodian to review the matter. They withdrew their appeals pending in the Supreme Court. The Custodian finally by a letter, dated 23rd April, 1963 informed the Central Government that the Custodian was left with no jurisdiction to deal with the matter on account of the curtailment of the powers of review since the 7th of June, 1962. On 5th of August, 1963, the Chief Settlement Commissioner issued notice to these vendee appellants for showing cause why their possession on the land be not vacated and the property resumed from them. Both Noor Muhammad and Mehtab Khan appellants filed constitutional petitions which were dismissed. They brought the matter to the Supreme Court. After examining at great length the law applicable, it was held by this Court in Maj. Mehtab Khan v. The Rehabilitation Authority and another PLD 1973 SC 451 that after the acquisition of the lands under section 4 of the Act, the Custodian of the Evacuee Property was left with no jurisdiction to confirm the sales in favour of the two appellants. Their appeals were dismissed. However, in the concluding para of the judgment, a recommendatory note to the following effect was recorded:- "Before parting with these cases, we would, however, like to observe that the sales in favour of the two appellants having been effected under registered sale-deeds, and for adequate consideration, it would be in the fitness of things if the Central Government or the Chief Settlement Commissioner were to see their way to transferring these lands to the appellants either under the policy letter referred to by Mr. Justice Sajjad Ahmad Jan as Custodian of Evacuee Property in his order, dated the 18th of July, 1961, or according to any other provisions and powers that may be available in this behalf. It would indeed be a great hardship to the appellants and to those persons who have purchased small plots of land from them, and constructed residential houses thereon, if the lands are taken away from them at this stage owing to non-confirmation of the sales in question. The price already paid by the appellants would naturally have to be taken into account in assessing their liability for any further payments for these lands."
3. In the meantime on 30th September, 1963 land measuring 285 Kanals out of the disputed land claimed by these vendees was proposed in the name of Mst. Shah Begum, a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir with verified claim. It was confirmed to her on 13-12-1963. One Mst. Maryam challenged her allotment on the ground that she had a prior right to be settled on that land. That appeal was considered by Deputy Settlement Commissioner and dismissed on 13-4-1964. On the 14th of January, 1964, Mst. Shah Begum sold this land by registered deed in favour of Dr. Muhammad Israr Khan. The consequential mutation was attested on 6-6-1965. An application was then filed by Akhtar Alam, the informer, under sections 10 and 11 of the Act complaining of the fraudulent allotment of Mst. Shah Begum. This was heard ex parte by the Settlement Commissioner who allowed it on 3-5-1976 and cancelled the allotment of Mst. Shah Begum.
4. Dr. Muhammad Israr Khan, the vendee from Mst. Shah Begum filed a constitutional petition in the High Court challenging this decision on the ground that not only he had purchased the property by registered deed and was recorded as the owner of it and had not been impleaded or informed of the proceedings, but that Mst. Shah Begum, who was proceeded ex parte, had died before this application was filed. These grounds were upheld, the order of resumption was set aside and the proceedings were remanded to re-decide it after impleading the proper parties. The Chief Settlement Commissioner afforded an opportunity of hearing to everyone concerned including the two vendees from the evacuee and by his order, dated 21-12-1983 held that the allotment in favour of Mst. Shah Begum was genuine, legal and not fable to interference in proceedings under sections 10 and 11 of the Act.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, four constitutional petitions were filed in the High Court, one (W.P. 10-R/84) was filed by informer Akhtar Alam against the rejection of his application, the other two (W.P. 12 and 13-R of 1984) were filed by the two vendees from the evacuee. The fourth is riot relevant. The High Court by the impugned judgment held that the two vendees from the evacuees were not claimants, had no pending proceedings which were saved or continued in terms of subsection (2) of section 2 of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws Repeal Act, 1975. The transfer of the claim of Mst. Shah Begum to village Topi was held to be in accordance with law and prior to the allotment in her favour and that that allotment had stood the test when Mst. Maryam had appealed against it. The finding of the Chief Settlement Commissioner that the documents showing to the contrary were not genuine and that they had been purposely introduced to make out a case, was upheld and the constitutional petitions were dismissed.
6. Mr. A.K. Brohi, the learned counsel for the vendees appellants contended that clause (b) of section 12 of the Act permitting sale of land provided the necessary locus standi to the vendee appellants, particularly in view of the observations made by this Court while dismissing their appeals before it. In fact such a sale had been agreed upon and only the price had to be settled.
Besides, according to the learned counsel, the proceedings before the Chief Settlement Commissioner were pending on the information laid by Akhtar Alain and the vendee appellants were represented in those proceedings. Being parties to those proceedings, they had a locus standi to bring the decision to the High Court for getting its legality and correctness tested. The learned counsel, thereafter took us through the bulk of the record to show that Mst. Shah Begum had no unsatisfied claim to get transferred to village Topi, that no such transfer had in fact taken place before the allotment was made in her name and that there were certain admissions made by Dr. Muhammad Israr Khan which supported his contention with regard to this allotment being forged and fraudulent.
7. Mr. Bashir Ahmad Ansari, the learned counsel for the informer has also drawn our attention to the Sadaqatnama in order to show that transfer of the claim of Mst. Shah Begum had not taken place and there were extensive forgeries in the record and these could be easily detected.
8. Mr. Aziz Qureshi, the learned counsel for the successors-in---interest of the other vendee Noor Muhammad, has adopted the arguments addressed by Mr. A.K. Brohi, as the case of the two vendees is identical.
9. Mr. A.R. Sheikh and Ch. Khalilur Rehman, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent have defended the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner both on facts and law by reference to the extensive record of Gujrat district which corroborates contemporaneously the fact of transfer of the excess verified units of Mst. Shah Begum from Gujrat to Rawalpindi district. It was, according to them, legally brought to village Topi and confirmation was made in time and could not be objected to on any ground whatsoever.
10. So far as the locus standi of the three appellants is concerned, it cannot be seriously disputed' or denied. The two vendees had purchased the property by registered sale-deed. They had got the land partitioned. They were entered at one stage in the revenue records as the proprietors of the land. They had made alienations of extensive portions of the land purchased by them. They had a judgment of this Court directing the Government to consider equitably and fairly their claim to the land so purchased. The Central Government had also taken certain steps to implement these observations of the Supreme Court and one of the Labour and Works Minister had, in his D.O. Letter, dated 18th August, 1973, recommended the sale of land to Maj. (Rtd.) Mehtab Khan on a nominal price of Rs.100 only. This recommendation was commended by the Additional Secretary by his D.O.
Letter, dated 18th May, 1974. It was in June, 1975 that 'the Central Government became aware of the fact that after resumption of the land by the Chief Settlement Commissioner it was allotted to Mst.
Shah Begum in 1963, it was permanently settled on her and ceased to be a part of the compensation pool. It was then that the directives issued earlier were recalled and the file closed on the part of the Central Government.
11. It has already been held by this Court in Fazal Din v. Lahore Improvement Trust PLD 1969 SC 223 that the right considered sufficient for maintaining a constitutional petition is not necessarily a right in the strict juristic sense, but it is enough if the applicant discloses that he had a personal interest in the performance of the legal duty which, if not performed or performed in a manner not permitted by law, could result in the loss of some personal benefit or advantage or curtailment of a privilege or liberty or franchise. Besides the two vendee appellants being parties to the proceedings, though impleaded at a late stage had the right as recognized in Haji Karim Bakhsh v.
Mst. Ayesha Khatoon PLD 1968 SC 362 to bring the decision in proceedings to which they were parties for judicial review in constitutional jurisdiction.
12. Initially, it was only the informer who was disputing not the genuineness of the claim of Mst. Shah Begum but the genuineness and the legality of the transfer of the excess units from district Gujrat to village Topi in Rawalpindi district. The two vendees were not then disputing it, e.g., in the writ petition (W.P. 24-R/82), Maj. Mehtab Khan had taken up the grounds that her claim was for rural area while land allotted to her in village Topi was a potential building site. Another ground taken up was that Mst. Shah Begum was of about 100 years. She had never applied and, obtained the transfer of her claim to Rawalpindi. It was one Fazal Ahmad acting as General Attorney of Mst. Shah Begum, who had done all this and that the allotment made to her was without notice to him. He actually challenged the letter 'of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated 5th of August, 1963 and the order of allotment made.
13. The genuineness of the claim of Mst. Shah Begum widow of Hussain Khan and its verification to the extent of 1498 units and transmission of the verified claim to Gujrat is established from the statement of Mr. Nasrullah Khan, Naib-Tehsildar, Central Record Office. It is borne out also from the record of Gujrat district, particularly RL-11 of Jalalpur Jattan where allotment of some units was made. This RL-11 also showed that in early 1963, 1,000 units were transferred to Rawalpindi district and its receipt and entry appears on 14th of January, 1963 in RL-11 of village Topi. This contemporaneous entry of a date when the dispute had not arisen is indicative of the transfer and also raises the normal presumption of it's regularity which remained un-displaced. It appears that by 1983 when the controversy got involved and the matter became contentious, much of the record was either lost or interpolated, so it appears from the inquiry got conducted by the Deputy Commissioner, Rawalpindi. The Sadaqatnama pleaded and the certificates show that by September, 1963 her excess units stood transferred to village Topi. The learned counsel for the informer does not dispute the existence of such a Sadaqatnama, but his objection is that an appropriate authority has not passed the order. He could not support this contention by reference to the original record and the copies are at variance and appear to be undependable.
14. The Chief Settlement Commissioner having the exclusive jurisdiction to inquire into the alleged illegality and fraud under sections 10 and 11 of the Act has undertaken an inquiry by reference to the record in his possession and available to him. He has come to a conclusion and given elaborate reasons therefore. The High Court while refusing to interfere with such a finding of fact, has observed that it will not be open in the writ jurisdiction to give a different finding as to this fact' and further that:- "Even if there be some marginal or peripheral lacuna in all those age-old proceedings, I for one would not like to exercise my discretion of issuing a writ to upset things only because the learned Settlement Commissioner could hold even an opposite view. Equally, I would hesitate to accept the plea that Mst. Shah Begum had been manipulating false or bogus entries in a score of places like Jalalpur Jattan, Thatha Khalil, Mandiala Lakhan, Topi and the Central Record Office. Land given to her in village Lakhan, Tehsil Rawalpindi was not challenged by anyone. In fact, that allotment was also based on the transfer of her units from Gujrat. How on earth another part of the same claim settled in village Topi could be assailed for want of proper transfer order? What could not be successfully assailed was the fact that she had a claim to certain amount of units as a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir, and as such was entitled to allotment. There was no reason why she may not have been given the land in village Topi, especially when the petitioners were occupying it under a sale the law did not permit. "
The view taken by the High Court is in consonance with the law laid down by this Court with regard to the constitutional jurisdiction, e.g. In Nawaza v. Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner PLD 1970 SC 39, it was held that the High Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction in a case like this, does not act as a Court of facts and ought not enter into and decide disputed questions of fact although it can interfere with a finding of fact given by a subordinate court, Tribunal or other authority if the finding is based on no evidence or is based on a complete misreading of the evidence. Similarly, in the case of Rahim Shah v. The Chief Election Commissioner and another PLD 1973 SC 24 the following law was laid down: - "The scope of interference in the High Court is, therefore, limited to the inquiry whether the tribunal has in doing the act or undertaking the proceedings acted in accordance with law. If the answer be in the affirmative the High Court will stay its hands and will not substitute its own findings for the findings recorded by the tribunal. Cases of no evidence, bad faith, misdirection or failure to follow judicial procedure, etc. Are treated as acts done without lawful authority and vitiate the act done or proceedings undertaken by the tribunal on this ground. Where the High Court is of opinion that 'there is no evidence proper to be considered by the inferior tribunal in support of some point material to the conviction or order, certiorari will be granted."
15. We find that the judgment of the High Court is unexceptionable and all these appeals must fail.
They are dismissed with no order as to costs.