1. ' WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---Amanat Khan, Khadi Khan and Muhammad Rahim Shah, appellants herein, have called in question the judgment dated 10-11-1986 passed by a learned Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court, whereby their Writ Petition No,386 of 1982 challenging the order of the Member, Federal Land Commission dated 4-3-1982, was dismissed. The leave granting order is as follows:- "In support of this petition it is contended that the findings of the learned Member of the Federal Land Commission that respondents Nos.5 and 6 were in cultivating possession of the land in dispute is based upon misreading of the relevant Khasra Girdwaris. After examining the copies of the Khasra Girdawaris and the Goshwara prepared by the local Patwari we find prima facie merit in the contention of the petitioners. We would accordingly grant leave to appeal. Security for costs in the sum of Rs,2,500. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any."
2. ' The facts, briefly stated, are that land measuring 733 Canals, 12 Marla's comprised in Khasra Nos.49-58, 229/226/27 to 45-227/46 to 48/50 to 57 (amalgamated as one block) situated in Village Saro Shah, Tehsil and District Mardan, was owned by Sir Abdul Wadood, the then Ruler of Swat on whose death it devolved upon his sons Mian Gul Abdul Haq Jehanzeb and Shahzada Sultan Room, who were affected by Martial Law Regulation 115 and they surrendered land measuring 174 Canals, 8 Marla's as the land in excess of their ceiling limit and in consequence, the same was resumed by the Land Commission on 20-8-1975 under Martial Law Regulation 115. Since the land was part of bigger Chars number and the owners had not specified the portion they were surrendering therefore, partition was effected by the Land Commission and mutation bearing No,490 was sanctioned on 28-11-1978 in this respect. The land fallen to the share of the Land Commission was found to be in actual physical possession of Zahir Shah and Abdur Rauf sons of Said Aman, respondents 5 and 6 herein, and therefore the same was allotted to them by the Deputy Land Commissioner vide order dated 4-10-1978 and 19-10-1979. The appellants submitted an application to the officers of the Land Commission alleging therein that the aforesaid allotment in favor of respondents 5 and 6 was fictitious and collusive as they were dealing in cloth business and were never in actual physical possession of the suit land to entitle them to the allotment thereof. This application was properly inquired into and the learned Land Commissioner, vide his order dated 9- 7-1981, upheld the orders of the Deputy Land Commissioner. A revision was filed before the Chief Land Commissioner, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar, who, vide his order dated 24-9-1981 remanded the case back to the Deputy Land Commissioner to make fresh allotment in the presence of the contesting parties and in accordance with law applicable in the case. However, this order was set aside by the Member, Federal Land Commission vide order dated 4-3-1982 and the orders of the Deputy Land Commissioner whereby the suit land had been allotted to respondents 5 and 6 were restored. The writ petition filed against it having failed, necessity to file the instant appeal through leave of the Court arose.
3. ' We have heard Mr. Hidayatullah, Advocate, for the appellants; Mr. Amara Khan, Advocate for respondents 5 and 6; and have perused the record of the case.
4. ' The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants were in actual physical possession of the suit land at the times of its resumption by the Land Commission in the year 1975 and that they were recorded as such in the Khasra Girdawari for the crucial crops of Kharif 1971 and Rabi 1971-72. He referred to the Khasra Girdawari placed on the file in support of his contention.
5. According to him, the land was resumed under Martial Law Regulation 115 when Act of 1977 had not yet been promulgated and therefore, the officers of the Land Commissioner were bound to allot the same according to the provision of Martial Law Regulation 115 and could not consider the Land Reforms Act of 1977. This argument was duly considered by the Member of the Federal Land Commission and fairly dealt with in Para. 6 of his judgment which is reproduced as under:-- "6. The Patwari of the area informed the Court that 711 Canals, 3 Marla's was cultivated by many tenants which also included the petitioners as well as the respondents. But after partition of the land by the Revenue Staff it transpired that the disputed land fall to the share of Zahir Shah and Abdul Rauf as cultivators. The respondents who are cultivators are in possession of certain Khasra numbers to the village which have not been surrendered by the declarant or resumed by Government."
6. It appears that the land surrendered was part of bigger area in the occupation of different tenants and, in consequence, the Land Commission felt the necessity of partitioning the same and resuming a particular portion therefrom which was done and a mutation duly sanctioned. It seems that the land resumed through partition was found to be in the actual physical possession of respondents 5 and 6 and was allotted to them. Their findings are essentially on facts arrived at not only on the proper appraisal of evidence, oral and. Documentary, but spot inspection as well. The High Court did not feel inclined to interfere with them in their Constitutional jurisdiction and we do not find any illegality in the discretion exercised by the High Court.
7. ' Resultantly, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.