1. QAISAR KHAN, J. Abdul Ghafoor and Muhammad Sharif, two brothers, were displaced persons.
2. They had left land in Ambala and Patiala Districts Most of the land left by them consisted of mortgagee rights. The two submitted a number of claim forms. Their claims on four forms relating to end left in Ambala District were verified for 2671 produce index units, against this entitlement they were confirmed land in village Tantley Hakim Haider A.I on the 12 of August.
3. Saeed-ud-Din Ahmad Naqvi and others who had their- units pending for satisfaction in village Rangeel Pur approached the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner for cancellation of the confirmed allotment in favour of Abdul Ghafoor and Muhammad Sharif in village Rangeel Pur on the ground that their entitlement being in respect of mortgagee rights they could not have been confirmed land in excess of 1000 units each as provided by paragraph. 7 of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme. In the course of the inquiry Abdul Ghafoor and Muhammad Sharif offered to surrender land confirmed to them in village Tatley Hakim Haider A.I to be able to retain the entire land confirmed in their names in village Rangee1pur. 'The matter ultimately came up before the Additional Deputy Commissioner exercising the powers of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner who by his order dated the 8th of December 1958 directed that an area equivalent to 595 and 502 produce index unity in Rangeelpur be respectively cancelled from the names of Abdul Ghafoor and Multammad Sharif. They were however given the option ~ to surrender the area of their choice.
4. Abdul Ghafoor and Muhammad Sharif bled an appeal against the aforesaid order dated the 8th of December 1958 of the Deputy Rehabilita--petition Commissioner before the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, Multan and in the meantime surrendered the land confirmed to them in village Tatley Hakim Haider A.I which was cancelled from their names by the Deputyth Rehabilitation Commissioner, Gujranwala on the 20th of. December 1958. The main ground of the appellants in their appeal was that they, had surrendered the land in Gujranwala District and the land confirmed in their names in village Rangeel pur was not in excess of 2000 produce index units.
5. Saeed-ud-Din Ahmad Naqvi and other mentioned above also filed cross-appeal filed a cross appeal alleging that the cancelled land should have been given to them as informers in view of the instructions contained in letter No 10668-55 9106-R (L) dated the 26th of August 1955 of the Rehabilitation Commissioner. The additional Rehabilitation Commissioner by his order dated the 25th of March 1961 dismissed the appeal of Saeed-ud-Din Ahmad Naqvi and others ins accepted the appeal of Abdul Ghafoor and Muhammad Sharif. The order of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner dated the 8th of December 1958 was set aside and Abdul Ghafoor and Muhammad Sharif were allowed to retain whole of the land in village Rangeepur as it did not exceed 2400 units which fact was admitted by Saeed-ud-Din Ahmad Naqvi and others as well. In this order dated the 25th of March 1961 however the two appeals were inadvertently described as revision petitions.
6. After the lapse of almost two years oil the 1st of January 1963 Saeed---ud-Din Ahmad Naqvi and others filed a revision petition before the Rehabilita--petition Commissioner, multan against tile aforesaid order dated the 25th of March 1961 of the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner.
7. Despite the plea of Abdul Ghafoor and Muhammad Sharif that the revision petition was barred by limitation and the further plea that a second revision was not competent, the Rehabilitation Commissioner by his order dated the 5th of January 1963 entertained the revision petition and issued notices to Abdul Ghafoor and Muhammad Sharif to appear before him and also summoned the Patwari with the record for tile 18th of July 1963.
8. Abdul Ghafoor and Muhammad Sharif thereupon tiled a writ petition in the high Court at Lahore for declaring the order dated the 5th of January 1963 of the Rehabilitation Commissioner entertaining the second revision against tile order of the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner as wholly without jurisdiction. Mr. Naqvi and others contested this writ petition.
9. The first contention of the petitioners that the second revision petition did not lie was repelled by the learned Judges oil the ground that the nature of the proceedings before the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner was described as "revisions" in stead of "appeals" only by accidental slip and no notice for its correction was necessary to have been given to the petitioners. On the second contention of the petitioners that the revision petition was barred by limitation the learned Judges held that if the revision petition was under section 11(4) of the Pakistan Rehabilitating Act then it should have been filed without avoidable delay and if it was under section 19(2) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act. 1953 then it should have been filed within 60 days of the order. According to the learned Judges a period of two years could not be treated as reasonable by any stretch of imagination. They therefore held that in the circumstances of the case the Rehabilitation Commissioner had no appropriate jurisdiction for entertaining the revision petition.
10. On merits the held that since the petitioners had surrendered land tin Gujranwala District the land in their names in Rangeelpur was not it1 excess even according to the respondents.The learned Judges therefore by their order dated the 9th of Februarys 1968 accepted the writ petition anal declared that the Rehabilitation Commissioner had entertained the revision petition without any lawful authority and any order made by him on that basis affecting the petitioners was void and ineffective.
11. It is against this order dated the 9th of February 1968 of the Division Bench of the High Court that Mr. Naqvi and others came up for special leave to appeal. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court the 24th; of October 1969 in the following words: --- "It is pointed out that in law the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commis--sioner had the exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether the revision petition preferred by the petitioners from the order of the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner was properly constituted and whether the delay of two years in lodging it was liable to be condoned or not. The learned Judges in the High Court have, however, in writ jurisdiction, held the proceedings in the revision petition to be without lawful authority and quashed the notices issued to the respondents.
12. There is force in the contention that the jurisdiction conferred by law on the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, to revise the orders of the subordinate authorities includes the power to condone delay in appropriate cases. Power also vests in him to suo moto revise the orders of the subordinate Settlement authorities. In this quashing view quashing of the proceedings with which the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner was lawfully seized is prima facie not warranted by Article 98 of the late Constitution."
13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that the High Court should not have interfered in its writ jurisdiction with the proceedings taken by the Rehabilitation Commissioner in the exercise of his revisional jurisdiction as he had jurisdiction to entertain a revision petition and when he had the jurisdiction to entertain a revision petition it necessarily followed that it was for him to decide as to whether to condone the delay in filing the revision petition or not. But since on merits there is no force whatsoever in the appellants' case we are therefore not inclined to interfere in this appeal.
14. The respondents had surrendered land confirmed to them in Gujranwala District and the land in their names in village Rangeelpur was not snore than 2000 units even according to the appellants.
15. Under the circumstances no interference is called for in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. Nor order as to costs.