1. ' MUHAMMAD BASHIR JEHANGIRI, J.---The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, whereby their Constitutional petition challenging the decision of the Court in the Revenue hierarchy was dismissed.
2. ' The petitioners' claim briefly stated is that the disputed laid alongwith some other parcels thereof was developed by the Government and was being irrigated by Band Khushdil Khan. The erstwhile British Government gave this land to the various Achekzai tribesmen including the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners and thereafter, the petitioners. In this background, they claimed the rights of tenancy in the said Government lands. The grievance of the petitioners expressed in the petition was that during the settlement operation of 1941, the respondents' great grandfather got his name entered in the Revenue Record as a tenant. In the year 1947, the great grandfather of the private respondents filed a suit under the Frontier Crimes Regulation which was contested by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. It was, however, ultimately decreed in favour of the respondent's great grandfather. In the meantime the dispute over the possession between the parties gave rise to proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. Which culminated in Criminal Revision Petition No,11 of 1973. The petitioners then made another attempt for grant of ownership rights in pursuance of notification of the Provincial Government dated 1-2-1977 which proved abortive and both the appeal and revision applications were also dismissed. As a sequel to what had happened between the parties, the private respondents moved an application for ejectment of the petitioners upto the level of the High Court. It is not clear as to why the ejectment proceedings had been taken to the High Court. Nonetheless the Assistant Commissioner, Pishin vide judgment dated 21-7-1988, ordered the ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed land. The appeal filed thereagainst was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Quetta, on 20-12-1988, and the revision to the M.B.R.
3. Also met with the same fate on 25-5-1995. These orders passed by the Court in the Revenue Hierarchy were challenged in the first round in the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Balochistan High Court and resultantly the writ petition was partly accepted and the case was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner/Collector-I, Pishin, with the direction to allow the petitioners to file written statement, lead evidence and then ejectment application be decided. By virtue of order dated 30- 4-1994 under the Balochistan Tenancy Ordinancd, 1978, the Collector directed the ejectment of the petitioners on 30-4-1994. The appeal and revision against the said order were dismissed. The petitioners again invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction challenging the order of the Court in the Revenue hierarchy. The High Court however, dismissed the petition.
4. ' Malik Sikandar Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the petitioners were not the tenants within the meaning of the Balochistan Tenancy Ordinance, 1978 and as a question of the title of the disputed land was involved and, therefore, Revenue Courts were devoid of jurisdiction. A perusal of the petition filed by the respondents before the Assistant Collector, Pishin, shows that it related to matters exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Courts which were, under the Balochistan Tenancy Ordinance, 1978, kept outside the purview of the civil Courts. It follows, therefore, that the Revenue Courts in assuming the jurisdiction neither committed any illegality nor excess of jurisdiction. The claims put forward by the petitioners before the Revenue Court certainly raised a question of .Title but his plea neither determined the forum nor the jurisdiction. Jurisdictional facts, namely, the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was to be determined and decided by that Court which had the initial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter, namely, the Revenue Court.
5. It is apparent that those Courts decided the matter. The only course open to the petitioners is to demonstrate that the decision of the jurisdictional facts at the hands of Revenue Courts suffered from any legal infirmity. In the background of the controversy alluded to in the earlier part of this judgment we are of the considered view that the Revenue Courts could not, on the mere assertion of the petitioners, hold that the relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist. A specific mention of this fact has been made in the order of the Revenue Courts. There is, therefore, no defect in assuming jurisdiction or in deciding a jurisdictional fact by the Revenue Courts.
6. ' The impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court suffers from no legal infirmity calling for our interference under Article 185(3) of the Constitution.
7. ' We find no merits in this petition. Leave to appeal is, therefore refused.