' In this Constitutional petition the validity of order dated 27-1-1979 passed by Settlement Commissioner (Lands) exercising the power of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, dismissing Mukhbari application of the petitioners under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958, has been called in question.
2. The facts of the case relevant for its disposal are that the land in dispute was allotted in satisfaction of claim of one Rahim son of Kalay Khan. The petitioners allegedly made application on 15-2-1974 under section 10/11 of the above aformentioned Act, alleging that Rahim son of Kalay Khan the claimant had gone back to India therefore, there was fraud played in obtaining orders for verification of his claim and allotment of land in satisfaction thereof by someone else who impersonated the said Rahim son of Kalay Khan. It appears from the recital of this application that the case of the petitioner was that Rahim son of Kalay Khan was not a Diplaced Person.
Respondent No,3 who had purchased the land filed application before the Settlement Commissioner on 27-5-1974 praying that he be impleaded as party in the proceedings which was allowed. Respondent No,3 pleaded that he was bona fide purchaser for value without notice. The application was accepted by Settlement Commissioner, Multan through order dated 29-6-1974 and the allotment of land made in the name of said Rahim son of Kalay Khan was ordered to be cancelled.
3. The Respondent No,4 filed Writ Petition No,580/R of 1974 in this Court challenging the said order.
Respondent No,4 also claimed to be the bona fide purchaser for value in good faith without notice of the land in dispute. This writ petition was accepted by judgment dated 4-12-1975 and the case was remanded for fresh decision. After remand the Chief Settlement Commissioner entrusted the case to Settlement Commissioner, Punjab. The Settlement Commissioner through impugned order dated 27-1-1979 dismissed the Mukhbari application of the petitioners on the ground that Nazir had not signed the Mukhbari application, the same was not supported by an affidavit and that was fake Mukhbari application and not filed before the competent authority within the period prescribed in that behalf.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that since the Settlement Commissioner passed an order on this Mukhbari application on 29-6-1974, therefore, at least on the said date the Mukhbari application was before the Settlement Commissioner as such the finding that the same was not filed within the prescribed time is based on acute misreading of the record. He argued that according to the instructions such an application could be made before 30-6-1974 as 30-6-1974 was the last date prescribed for making such an application. He further elaborated his argument by saying that an application which was disposed of on 29-6-1974 after taking proceedings in which evidence was recorded therefore, the same must have been filed long before the said date and it was in fact filed on 15-2-1974. He has also placed reliance on report of the concerned official of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) in which he stated that the said Mukhbari application had been entered at serial No,1(0 on 15-2-1974 in support of his arguments.
5. The argument appears to be ingenious but not tenable on close scrutiny, as from the examination of the papers placed on the record the same cannot stand the test of scrutiny.
6. The finding of the Settlement Commissioner as a matter of fact is that the application was not presented before the competent authority within the time prescribed in that behalf. The certified copy of the application issued by the Settlement Department shows that it was presented to the Settlement Commissioner, Multan as it has been addressed to the said officer. When questioned it was frankly conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioners that according to law all such Mukhbari applications were required to be presented before the Chief Settlement Commissioner who was to entrust the same to any other Settlement Officer with delegated powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner to dispose them of or it could be disposed of by Chief Settlement Commissioner himself. The law is firmly settled that in determining the question whether an application was instituted within time prescribed by law the date of institution of the same for purpose of limitation shall be the date on which it was presented or filed before the competent proper Court. In this case the Mukhbari application was entrusted to the Settlement Commissioner by the Chief Settlement Commissioner after the remand of the case in Writ Petition No,580/R of 1974 therefore, even if it is held that the Mukhbari application when it was placed before the Chief Settlement Commissioner for entrustment of the same to the Settlement Commissioner in pursuance of the judgment passed in the said writ petition in 1975 is taken to the date of institution of the said application before competent authority, the same being beyond 30-6-1974 i,e. The last date for filing the said application under the law as such it was rightly held to be barred by time and no exception can be taken to the same.
7. I have also examined the certified copy of the Mukhbari application which does not contain any entry that the same was presented even to the Settlement Commissioner because there is no noting or the order with the date as to when it was presented. Usually such an application when presented to or received by the officer he usually writes an order on it of its having been presented before him. There is no order placed on the record having been separately passed for registration of the said application. Even the case number has not been recorded on the application. The report of the Head Clerk of Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners shows that according to his opinion the date 15-2-1974 in the register was doubtful. In these circumstances, if an inference had been raised by the Settlement Commissioner that the Mukhbari application appeared to be fake is not based on extraneous matters or non consideration of the record and cannot be construed to be finding based on conjectures and surmises.
8. Even otherwise, the petitioners have no case, even if the said application is treated to have been filed within limitation and before proper forum. The case of the petitioners was that Rahim son of Kalay Khan was not a Diplaced Person therefore the order passed in respect of his claim by the claim Authorities was illegal and bogus and consequently the allotment made against the said claim was also obtained through fraud.
9. It has been held in case reported as Muhammad Yaqub and others v. Nazar Khan and others 1983 SCM R 1252 and Feroze Ahmad Khan and others v. Settlement Commissioner and others 1990 CLC 1508 that Settlement Authorities were vested with no jurisdiction to question the validity or legality of orders passed by the Claim Authorities for verification of the claim of a claimant. It has been held in latter authority that the question whether claimant migrated to Pakistan or not was question relatable to the validity of the claim passed in his favour therefore could not be raised before the Settlement Authorities.
10. The Settlement Commissioner after examining the record also recorded a finding of fact that the claimant Rahim son of Kalay Khan himself appeared before the D.C./Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands), D.G. Khan when the allotment was made in his favour. It has been held to be a genuine allotment.
11. The findings of the facts recorded by the Settlement Commissioner have not been shown to have suffered from any illegality which could be questioned in Constitutional jurisdiction. The writ petition fails which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.