' This judgment shall dispose of writ petition No, 19/R-82 and writ petition No,61/R-82 involving identical questions of law and facts and arising out of the same impugned order dated 17-9-1981 of the Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Lahore.
2. Briefly, the facts are that Professor Muhammad Ehsan respondent No,3, since dead, whose legal representatives have filed writ petition No,19/R-82, submitted an application on 29-3-1974 against the allotment obtained by Allah Rakha in village Ramke Chatta, Tehsil Hafizabad, District Gujranwala, on the ground that it was obtained fraudulently. The learned Settlement Commissioner, after appreciating the evidence and the material brought on the record, recorded a finding of fact that Allah Rakha got his entire claim satisfied in Tehsil Hafizabad, District Gujranwala.
Later he sold his land to Fazal Ahmad and Hamid Ahmad respondents and subsequently obtained double allotment through their attorney Muhammad Shard.
3. Ch. Muhammad Ismail learned counsel for Allah Rakha submitted that the impugned order is based partly on misreading of evidence and partly in disregard to the evidence on the record. It was submitted that Allah Rakha had 1389 Produce Index Units against which he was allotted land measuring 44 Kanals vide Khata No,144 of RL II in village Targa and for the remaining units, he applied for compensation, but the Settlement Commissioner wrongly recorded that his remaining units were transferred to Gujranwala, where his attorney Muhammad Sharif obtained allotment in lieu of his unsatisfied units. Mr. Muhammad Ismail contended that father of respondents Fazal Ahmad and Hamid Ahmad was a Tehsildar and also a Chairman of the Municipal Committee, Hafizabad. He had played fraud upon the petitioners by identifying Muhammad Sharif, the so- called attorney of the petitioners and in fact himself fraudulently secured the allotment. It was urged that Muhammad Sharif's powerof-attorney is not proved according to law, inasmuch as, Allah Rakha was not confronted with that power-of-attorney in cross-examination, nor he was confronted with his thumb impression/signature on the power-of-attorney. Reliance was also placed on Muhamamd Yusuf v. S.M. Ayyub (PLD 1973 SC 160), to contend that the documents, which are not copies of judicial record, should not be received in evidence without proof of signatures and handwriting of persons alleged to have signed or written them, even if such documents are brought on the record and exhibited without objection.
4. Learned counsel for Muhammad Irfan etc., the predecessor-in-interest of the Mukhbar Professor Muhammad Ehsan adopted the arguments of Ch. Muhammad Ismail and also submitted that the Mukhbari application should have been accepted by the learned Settlement Commissioner.
5. Ch. Qadir Bakhsh, learned counsel for respondents Fazal Ahmad and Hamid Ahmad argued that the contention raised by the petitioners relates to a finding of fact which is not open to interference in writ jurisdiction. He also submitted that Allah Rakha did not produce any evidence in support of his contention except his own statement, but merely placed reliance on the statements of Abdul Aziz Kanugo, Munshi Asmat All Patwari of village Targa and Muhammad Taqi, Record Keeper, Central Record Office. Ch. Qadir Bakhsh also submitted that on 13-2-1973, Allah Rakha appointed Abdul Ghani as his attorney for obtaining allotment in lieu of his unsatisfied Units in District Gujranwala. This registered power-of-attorney was produced in the Court of Settlement Commissioner during hearing of the Mukhbari application. Subsequently, by another registered deed dated 3-11-1963 Allah Rakha appointed Muhammad Sharif as his attorney to secure allotment in lieu of his pending Units. Certified copy of his power-of-attorney has been produced before the Settlement Commissioner. In pursuance of this power-of-attorney, Muhammad Sharif, obtained allotment in the revenue estate of Wanike Tarar and Ramke Chatta, Tehsil. Hafizabad, District Gujranwala, vide RL-II. Subsequently, this land was sold in favour of Hamid Ahmad and Fazal Ahmad, respondents in writ petition No,19/R-82 and mutation No,1441 was attested on 30-1-1965 in respect of area measuring 65 Kanals 7 Marlas. Mutation No,1551 attested on 11-5-1965 relates to land measuring 740 Kanals situated in Mauza Ramke Chatta, Tehsil Hafizabad, District Gujranwala.
These sales were incorporated in the revenue record and right from the year 1965 till today the vendee-respondents are recorded as owners. At the time of allotment, the land was lying vacant as Banjar Qadecm and had never been under cultivation and after purchase of this land, the respondents installed tubewell and by spending considerable amount and labour brought this land under cultivation.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. A finding of fact has been recorded that Allah Rakha got his entire claim satisfied in Tehsil Hafiz Abad, District Gujranwala, and after selling the land to Fazal Ahmad and Hameed Ahmad respondents, obtained a duplicate allotment through his attorney Muhammad Sharif. I do not find any case of misreading or material disregard of any piece of evidence. The question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners relates to appreciation of evidence which cannot be undertaken in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The power of attorney executed by Allah Rakha was proved on record through the Handwriting Expert Mr. Hafeez Ullah Butt, who deposed that the signatures of Allah Rakha as well as his attorney Muhammad Sharif and Abdul Ghani tallied with the admitted signatures. Allah Rakha also failed to produce any evidence in support of his contention except his own statement. This being so, the case of Khan Muhammad Yusuf Khan Khatak (supra) relied upon by the petitioners is distinguishable and not attracted to the facts of the present case. The learned Settlement Commissioner, after calling for the record from the Central Record Room as well as from the District Authorities, came to the conclusion that the allotment had been secured by the petitioners in District Gujranwala. The finding is not open to challenge in writ jurisdiction.
7. As regards Writ Petition No,19-R-82, filed by the successors-in-interest of the Mukhbar Professor MA. Ehsan, suffice it to say that a Mukhbar has no locus standi to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction. Refer Muhammad Ismail v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and 8 others (1974 SCMR 85).
8. In view of the above, both the writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed with costs.