' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---Petitioners seek leave to appeal against an order of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dated 2-5-1994 whereby their Writ Petition No, 16672/93 calling in question the orders, dated 4-10-1984, 14-12-1986 and 30-9-1993 respectively passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Faisalabad; Land Commissioner F'abad Division and the Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, has been dismissed.
2. Facts strictly relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that Raja Muhammad Masood Raza, who is now represented by his legal heirs, the present petitioners filed a declaration about his land holding under M.L.R.115, Deputy Land Commissioner, Faisalabad by his order dated 26-12-1972 declared his holding to be equivalent to 20082 P.I.Us., allowed him to retain the land equivalent to 14000 P.I.Us. And resumed the remaining 6082 P.I.Us. Being in excess of permissible ceiling. It may be stated that the Deputy Land Commissioner calculated the P.I.Us. Of the land of the declarant situate within Municipal Limits of F'abad at the rate of 108 P.I.Us., per acre. The declarant filed an appeal contending, inter alia, that a portion of his holding was Sem and Thur stricken for which concession should have been allowed in the calculation of P.I.Us. And that the portion of his hold falling within the Municipal Limits had been wrongly calculated @108 P.I.Us. Per acre while it being Nehri land should have been calculated @ 81 P.I.Us. Per acre. The Land Commissioner by his order dated 8-8-1973 granted some relief.To the declarent in respect of some other grievance (not relevant for the present petition) but his afore-noted contentions were not accepted. The declarant then filed further appeal before the Chief Land Commissioner which was decided by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner who by his order dated 29-6-1974 directed the Deputy Land Commissioner to re-examine the claim of the declarant for rebate on account of Sem and Thur in the light of actual damage caused to his land, by making a spot inspection and by comparing the position with the relevant record of the Reclamation Department. All other claims of the declarant including the one relating to the calculation of P.I.Us. Of his land situate within the Municipal Limits were rejected by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner.
3. Pursuant to the aforementioned direction of Additional Chief Land Commissioner, the Deputy Land Commissioner after obtaining a report from the Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim of the declarant by his order dated 5-8-1974 stating that the entries in the Khasra Girdawari, record of Reclamation Department and investigation of the position existing on the ground did not support the contention of the declarant that his land had been damaged by Sem and Thur to extent of 21%.
Order of the Deputy Land Commissioner was maintained in appeal by the Land Commissioner but the Additional Chief Land Commissioner once again remanded the case to the Deputy Land Commissioner and directed him vide order dated 19-12-1974 to hold another enquiry. The Deputy Land Commissioner again rejected the claim of the declarant for rebate in P.I.Us. On 3-6-1975 holding that the spot verification report, revenue record and the record of the Reclamation Department did not show. That any piece of land of the declarant was affected by Sem and Thur during the crucial harvests i.e, Kharif 1969 and Rabi 1970. The declarant again agitated the matter in appeal which was allowed by the Land Commissioner by his order dated 25-1-1977 directing that a reduction of 10% in P.I.Us. Be give in respect of field numbers given in the sample report of the department of Soil Science. The declarant did not file any further appeal or revision against the order of the Land Commissioner dated 25-1-1977 which thus attained finality qua his claim for rebate on account of Sem and Thur.
4. As regards the other claim of the declarant regarding .The calculation of P.I.Us. Of his land situate within Municipal Limits which, as noted above, had been rejected by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner by his order dated 29-6-1974, he had filed a revision before the Federal Land Commission which was rejected vide order dated 26-10-1976. He then approached the Lahore High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction to challenge the orders of Land Commission Authorities regarding calculation of P.I.Us. Of his land situate within Municipal Limits. High Court allowed the writ petition and held that the classification of soil as entered in the revenue records for the crucial harvests is to form the basis of calculation of P.I.Us. And it is not open to the Land Commission Authorities to adopt any other method for determining the class of land. Punjab Land Commission challenged the order of High Court in an appeal before this Court which was accepted vide judgment dated 27-11-1982 and the case was remanded to the Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab for fresh decision in the light of the observations made therein. On remand, the Chief Land Commissioner by his order dated 9-2-1984 held that the land of the declarant situate within Municipal Limits should be evaluated at the rate of 81 P.I.Us. Per acre. Order of the Additional Chief Land Commissioner dated 29-6-1974 was thus modified and the Deputy Land Commissioner was directed to finalise the determination of the holding of the declarant by calculating the P.I. Us. Of the land situate within Municipal Limits of Faisalabad Town at the rate of 81 P.I.Us. Per acre. In pursuance of this direction, the Deputy Land Commissioner re-calculated the P.I.Us. Of the declarant and found that he actually held 4004 P.I.Us. In excess of his entitlement which were reliable to be resumed. This was vide order dated 4-10-1984.
5. The delcarant assailed the order of the Deputy Land Commissioner dated 4-10-1984 in an appeal before the Land Commissioner wherein he re-agitated his claim for rebate on account of Sem and Thur contending that he was entitled to reduction of 60% in P.I.Us. In respect of his entire land affected by Sem and Thur and that he was wrongly given the rebate of 10% and that, too, only to the extent of the land from which samples were taken. The appeal was rejected by the Land Commissioner vide his order dated 4-12-1986. The declarant took the matter in revision which too was dismissed by the Chief Land Commissioner vide the impugned order dated 30-9-1993 on the short ground that the declarant in his appeal had sought to challenge the order of the Land Commissioner passed on 25-1-1977 which could not be permitted as the Land Commissioner could not review any order of his predecessor after 30-4-1975. It was accordingly held by the Chief Land Commissioner that the Land Commissioner had rightly rejected the appeal of the declarant.
6. Petitioners challenged the aforementioned orders of the Land Commission Authorities passed on 4-10-1984, 14-12-1986 and 30-9-1993 in a Constitutional petition filed in the Lahore High Court which the learned Judges of a Division Bench dismissed in limine holding that The order dated 4-10-1984 was passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner pursuant to the remand order dated 9-2-1984, which attained finality as the said order of the Chief sand Commissioner, Punjab, was not challenged any further. It would, therefore, be seen that the plea that the land was affected by Sem and Thur and the petitioners were entitled to retain me land no longer remained/avaialble and the said plea should not have been entertained in the remand proceedings" of Division Bench is under challenge in this petition.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have also minutely gone through the various orders 'passed by the Land Commission Authorities. As stated above, the Land Commissioner by his order dated 25-1-1977 had allowed 10% reduction in P.I.Us. On account of Sem and Thur and this order was never challenged by the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest and it had thus, attained finality. It was, therefore, not open to the petitioners to re-agitate the issue of rebate/reduction in P.I.Us. On account of Sem and Thur in the guise of an appeal filed against the order of Deputy Land Commissioner dated 4-10-1984. As rightly observed by Chief Land Commissioner, the Land Commissioner was left with no jurisdiction to review the order of his predecessor after 30-4-1975, the date specified in rule 12 of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1972 which position has not been disputed by the learned counsel. Not only that, the order of the Deputy Land Commissioner dated 4-10-1984 which was passed only to implement the order of the Chief Land Commissioner dated 9-2-1984 was not open to any appeal or revision particularly when the Chief Land Commissioner had accepted the contention of the petitioners' predecessor for calculating the P.I.Us. Of his 'Nehri' land situate within Municipal Limits at the rate of 81 P.I.Us. Per acre. In any case, the issue of rebate on account of Sem and Thur could not be raised in an appeal against an order of the Deputy Land Commissioner which related to the re-calculation of P.I.Us. In respect of the land situate within Municipal Limits and that, too, on the direction of the Chief Land Commissioner.
8. Thus viewed from whatever angle, the impugned orders of Land Commission Authorities were not open to' interference and the High Court rightly dismissed the petitioners' Constitutional petition. No case for leave to appeal is made out which is accordingly refused and the leave petition dismissed.