' MUHAMMAD YUNUS SURAKHVI, J.---This appeal, by way of leave, has been directed against the order passed by the High Court on 22-2-1999, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants herein was dismissed.
2. The precise facts for the disposal of the present appeal are that an evacuee land comprising Survey No, 135 situate in Kotehri Najam Khan, Tehsil and District Bagh was allotted in the name of different persons. Total acreage of the number Khasra was 29 Kanals and 12 Marlas, 7 Kanals and 10 Marlas of the land was allotted in the name of Shamas Din deceased. 7 Kanals and 7 Marlas was allotted in the name of Ghulam Qadir, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents Nos. 3 to 9, 7 Kanals and 8 Marlas was allotted in the name of Wali Muhammad and 7 Kanals and 8 Marlas in the name of Jamal Din who are also dead and whose heirs are appellants in the case. The dispute relates to 7 Kanals and 10 Marlas of land which stood allotted in the name of Shamas Din. After the death of Shamas Din this land was allotted in the name of Ghulam Qadir, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.3 to 9, who obtained Proprietary Rights Transfer Order on 10-9-1986. The predecessor-in-interest of appellants Jamal Din, on the plea that the land allotted in the name of Shamas Din was transferred in his favour by Mst. Sharifa Bibi, the daughter of Shamas Din, also obtained the Proprietary Rights Transfer Order. The respondents filed a review petition against the Proprietary Rights Transfer Order issued in favour of the appellants by the Custodian for the land left by Shamas Din on 13-4-1987 on the ground that the land stood already transferred in the name of respondents through Proprietary Rights Transfer Order. The Custodian accepting the review petition on 7-11-1994 cancelled the Proprietary Rights Transfer Order issued in favour of the appellants on 13-4-1987. The appellants thereafter filed a review petition before the Custodian against the order, dated 7-11-1994 but the same was also dismissed on 17-10-1996. The appellants again filed another review petition before the Custodian against Proprietary Rights Transfer Order issued by him on 10-9-1996 for the land in dispute which was left by Shamas Din and was allotted in the name of respondent. The Custodian dismissed the subsequent review petition as well on 27- 9-1997. The appellants through a writ petition assailed the orders passed by the Custodian on 7-11- 1994, 17-10-1996, 17-9-1997, 10-6-1996 and 27-10-1997 and the entitlement certificate issued by the Rehabilitation Commissioner, dated 27-6-1987. The High Court as said earlier, dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants. Hence, this appeal.
3. Sit. Abdul Aziz, the learned counsel for the appellants, has contended that the land in dispute measuring 7 Kanals and 10 Marlas was allotted in the name of Shamas Din. On The death of Shamas Din, this land was transferred in the name of Jamal Din and Wali Muhammad through an agreement executed by Mst. Shrita Bi, the daughter of Shamas Din. According to the learned counsel the land was never allotted in the name of Ghulam Qadir who illegally obtained the Proprietary Rights Transfer Order. According to him, a valid allotment, unless cancelled in accordance with law by the Government or any other Rehabilitation Authority, it cannot be transferred to any other person. The learned counsel submitted with vehemence that land was not cancelled from the name of Shamas Din hence its allotment in the name of Ghulam Qadir was without any lawful authority and its Proprietary Rights Transfer Order was of no legal effect. The learned counsel for the appellants pressed into service the submission that Shamas Din died in April, 1970 and during his lifetime the subsequent allotment could not have been made in the name of Ghulam Qadir. To substantiate his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the death certificate which is appended with the High Court's file at page 46 shown as Annexure 'F' wherein its serial number is shown as 6 and the person who informed about the death of Shamas Din is mentioned ac Abdul Latif, the son of Shamas Din. The date of report of death is entered as 10-9- 1997 in this death certificate. On the strength of the aforesaid argument the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Shamas Din died in 1970, thus, how a subsequent allotment could have been made in the name of Ghulam Qadir during the lifetime of Shamas Din. Even if it be assumed that a valid allotment was made on 27-4-1956 in the name of Ghulam Qadir, the predecessor-in- interest of respondents Nos. 3 to 9, the allotment in favour of Shamas Din was made in the year 1954. So, the allotment existing in the name of Shamas Din prior to the allotment of Ghulam Qadir held the field as the subsequent allotment was a nullity during the subsistence of first allotment. Sh.
Abdul Aziz in support of his contention relied upon Muhammad Shafi v. Mst. Jannat Bibi and others 1994 SCR 247 and Zafar Iqbal v. Abdul Aziz and another 1998 CLC 286.
4. Syed Muhammad Siddique Shah Bukhara, the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 3 to 9, while controverting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, contended that on the death of Shamas Din the land was available for allotment as he had no legal heirs to inherit him. It was further contended the land was validly allotted in the name of Ghulam Qadir, the father of respondents, as it was available for allotment and a valid Proprietary Rights Transfer Order was issued in his favour in presence of which no subsequent Proprietary Rights Transfer Order could have been issued. The learned counsel contended that the appellants filed review petition against the Proprietary Rights Transfer Order issued in favor of the respondents on 10-9-1986 ten years thereafter i,e, 18-11-1994 although they were in know of the fact of this allotment in the name of respondent's father. The learned counsel for the respondents strenuously argued that in this Court another death certificate of Shamas Din has been produced by the appellants which appears at page 32 of the paper book which shows its serial number as 62 and the name of person giving information of death is entered as Zulekha Bi, the sister-in-law of deceased Shamas Din. The date of report of death is entered as 20-3-1998. The respondents in their written statement have denied the factum of death of Shamas Din in 1970 and they have also appended a certificate from Secretary, Union Council, Bagh with the High Court's file as Annexure 'D.A.' wherein it has been verified by Secretary, Union Council, Bagh that from his office no certificate dated 10-9-1997 was issued nor any such information is available from any record of the Union Council.
5. On the basis of the above-stated arguments the learned counsel contended that both the certificates purportedly issued by the Secretary, Union Council, Bagh are not only self-destructive but are totally contradictory, whereas the third certificate which has been filed by the respondents negates the very issues of the certificate in accordance with the record available in the Union Council, Bagh. The learned counsel for the respondents maintained that the High Court committed no error in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants. The learned counsel further maintained that the appellants filed successive review petition before the Custodian on the same facts and circumstances which were available at the time of filing of first review petition. Therefore, the subsequent review petitions were not maintainable and the same were rightly dismissed by the learned Custodian.
6. Mr. Farooq Hussain Kashmiri, the learned counsel for respondent No,1, fully supported the arguments advanced by Syed Muhammad Siddique Shah Bukhari and supported the impugned judgment of the High Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have gone through the record of the case including the impugned judgment of the High Court and orders of the Custodian placed on record. The claim of appellants precisely is that after the death of Shamas Din the land in dispute was transferred through an agreement by Mst. Sharifa Bi, the daughter of Shamas Din. The Rehabilitation Authorities as well as the Custodian and the High Court have disbelieved the assertion of the appellants in this regard and we cannot substitute our own view for the view expressed by the Rehabilitation Authorities, the Custodian and the High Court.
Even otherwise no cogent evidence has been brought on record to show that the land allotted in the name of Shamas Din was ever transferred in the name of Mst. Sharifa Bi who subsequently transferred the same in the name of the appellants.
7. Irrespective of that any such alleged transfer of allotment is neither entered in the Rehabilitation record nor in the allotment made in favour of the appellants nor is the allotment transferred in the name of Mst. Sharifa Bi, the alleged daughter of Shamas Din In the absence of valid allotment of land in the name of the appellants no Proprietary Rights Transfer Order could have been issued in their favour. In our view the Proprietary Rights Transfer Order follows the enticement certificate. In absence of valid allotment in the name of the appellants the Proprietary Rights Transfer Order issued in their favour was rightly cancelled by the Custodian, as the same stood already issued in the name of predecessor of the respondents. The Custodian was not authorized to pass a subsequent order of issuing Proprietary Rights Transfer Order and his recalling the order is right exercise of jurisdiction by rejecting the review petitions.
8. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that successive review petitions could not have been filed by the appellants on the same facts and circumstances on which the first review petition was filed, we think that the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is not without any substance. Although we have held in some of the cases that in the scheme of Rehabilitation Law the successive review petitions are not barred but he same doesn't mean that the successive review petitions should be filed on the same facts and circumstances which were existing at the time of filing of first review petition. In order to elaborate it may be pointed out that in a judgment there is a glaring mistake appearing on the face of record or there appears some clerical mistake, the successive review petitions are not barred. Similarly, if the subsequent judgment under review suffers from such defect as pointed out above, the other review petition is Lot barred but it is not a rule of universal application that successive review petitions are permissible under all the circumstances.
8. Having reached the conclusion that the land in dispute was allotted in the name of Ghulam Qadir, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 3 to 9 on 27-4-1956 the same does not suffer from any legal infirmity as after the death of Shamas Din the land was available for allotment and the competent Rehabilitation Authorities allotted the same to Ghulam Qadir. This fact is sufficiently supported by the allotment chit existing in the name of Ghulam Qadir which is part of the file and which distinctly relates to the land in dispute as its acreage is shown as 7 Kanals and 10 Marlas and number Khasra is entered as 135 min.
' In the light of aforesaid reason, finding no force in this appeal it is hereby dismissed with costs.