1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the former High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 377 of 1963, dated the 18th March 1965. By this judgment, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
2. The dispute between the parties is in respect of Property No. 15/ABM., consisting of one shop, two store rooms at the back and a chaubara and No. 15/KL, a residential portion, situated at Clyde Road, Lal Kurti, Rawalpindi. The appellant was in possession of a shop and two store--rooms. He is a claimant and submitted C. S. Form for the transfer of one shop, two store-rooms and chaubara.
3. Mst. Saeeda Khartum, who was in occupation of the residential portion of the property in dispute, filed t C. H. Form for its transfer. On the 29th November 1959, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, transferred the shop and chqubara to the appellant. The house was transferred to Mst.
4. Saeeda Khanum. Mst. Saeeda Khanurn filed a review petition before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in which she claimed t Ho store-rooms. This was dismissed on the 21st March, 1960.
5. She filed an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the case was remanded to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on the 28th March 1960. On this occasion, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, after remand, divided the shop into two portions. He gave one shop to the appellant and the other shop was put in auction pool. The chaubara was declared as a house and was put in the auction list. Both the appellant and Mst. Saeeda Khanum filed appeals before the Additional Settlement Commissioner. These appeals were disposed of on the 11th August 1960.
6. Both the appeals were accepted. Alst. Saeeda Khanum, was given two store-rooms and the appellant was given the whole shop and chaubara. The appellant filed further revision before the Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, which was accepted on the 23rd September 1960. He transferred the whole shop, two store-rooms and chaubara to the appellant. Mst. Saeeda Khanum filed second revision petition which was heard by Ch. Sultan Muhammad Khan respondent No. 1. He rejected the claim of Mst. Saeeda Khanum in respect of the store-rooms. He modified the order of the Settlement Commissioner and took away the chaubara from the appellant and put it in auction pool.
7. The appellant challenged the order of Ch. Sultan Muhammad Khan in Writ Petition No. 2233/R of 1962, on the ground that Ch. Sultan Muhammad Khan bad no jurisdiction to hear the second revision petition as the record had, tot been summoned by him on the date when he Issued notice to the appellant. It was further contended that the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi; was not subject to appeal or revision by the Settlement authorities. These contentions were rejected by Mr. Justice Masood Ahmad, J., by order dated the 19th December 162. The appellant challenged this order in Letters Patent Appeal which was dismissed in limine on the 18th March 1965.
8. Special leave was granted to consider the question whether Ch. Sultan Muhammad Khan had jurisdiction to entertain the second revision and whether the order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was final and not susceptible of interference in appeal or revision.
9. Ch. Muhammad Sardar Khan, learned Advocate-on-Record for the appellant, bas conceded that the- second point on which leave was granted is not open for consideration as section 31(2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, has been amended by section 3 of the Displaced Persons Amendment Ordinance, 1965 and an order passed by the Settlement authorities is subject to the provisions of Chapter VI in the same manner and to the same extent as any other order passed by the Settlement authorities. We would, therefore, hold that the order of the D. S. C. Was subject to appeal and revision of the higher authorities.; Coming now to the question whether Ch. Sultan Muhammad Khan was competent to hear the second revision. Its decision depends on the question whether the record of the case was called for before the 13th January 192. The appellant has referred to the report submitted by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Policy), dated the 7th June 1960, in which it is stated as under:- "From the perusal of the relevant record, it is revealed that no order bad been passed by the Settlement Commissioner, with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner to call for the lower Court record before the 13th January 1962 when he passed the impugned order dated the 24th April 196 2 in this case."
10. On the basis of this report, it is contended by Ch. Muhammad Sardar Khan, that the record was not before Ch. Sultan Muhammad Khan, Settlement Commissioner with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner and his order dated the 24th April 1562 is without jurisdiction. The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed us. In the first place, the report by itself is no proof of the fact that the record of the cage was not summoned before the 13th January 1962. It is not based on the knowledge of the person who submitted the report. The appellant should have summoned the record of the revision to prove that the record was not summoned. From the certified copy filed by the appellant, it appears that on the 31st January 1962, the Chief Settlement Commissioner directed to issue notice to the parties to appear at Rawalpindi on the 15th February 1962. The date on which the notice was issued, was after 13th January 1962 and it appears to us that the record of the case must have been before him when he directed the issue of notice to the parties. There is a presumption that all official acts are done in accordance with law. We are, therefore, of the view that the record of the case must have been summoned before the notice was issued to the parties to appear at Rawalpindi.
11. "Against one of the grounds upon which the Courts in England have consistently held a party seeking such a writ to have disentitled himself to this extraordinary remedy is his failure to object to such usurpation of jurisdiction before the Tribunal concerned or to raise the objection at the earliest opportunity before the Tribunal, whose illegal order he seeks to have quashed by the writ, if he was aware that the Tribunal lacked the jurisdiction it purported to exercise. The King v. Williams and others Ex parte Philips, L R (1914) 1 KB608.
12. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we are satisfied that this is not a fit case for interference in appeal. We would, therefore, dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.;