' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---This petition is directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 6-7-2000, whereby Writ Petition No,546 of 1998 tiled by the petitioner was dismissed with costs.
2. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that on merging of former State of Swat and creation of District Swat by virtue of Dir, Chitral and Swat (Administration) Regulation, 1969, the Governor of North-West Frontier Province through Home, Tribal Affairs and Local Government Department (Provincial Government of West Pakistan), in exercise of powers, conferred by sub-clause (b) of clause (3) of the Regulation (ibid), issued Notification No,66-SO(SPL)HD/70, dated 8-10-1970, constituting a Commission consisting of a Chairman and one Member to be appointed by the Governor by notification in the official Gazette with the. Following terms of reference: "(1) To inquire into and identify the nature and extent of the agrarian problem in Swat District with special reference to the property disputes between--
(a) the Wali and the ousted claimant-owner; and
(b) the landowners and the tenants.
' To make recommendations and suggest measure how to best solve this problem not only with a view to put an end to the present conflict but also laying down a sound and firm basis for the ultimate land settlement at an early date."
3. The Commission was to submit its report to the Governor within six months from the date of issuance of the notification. Through an application one Bacha Khan Mir Khel and others registered a Case No,261/SWAT, against Ex-Wali of Swat, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein, and submitted it before the Inquiry Commission, claiming the ownership of the land in dispute. The Inquiry Commission found that Badshah Sahib had purchased two out of six properties as mentioned in the application on the basis of registered sale-deeds from the owners and submitted its report to the Deputy Commissioner Swat, who accepted the recommendations of the Inquiry Commission and passed the following orders:-- "(i) The plaintiffs are the owners of 2 pieces of land in Dandoona Qala, land in Wand Kama Baba, land in Wand Loe Barn and about two pieces of land in Top Sin.
(ii) Badshah Sahib is the owner of rest of the land in dispute."
4. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders of the Deputy Commissioner, the respondents preferred an appeal, which was dismissed. Thereafter, the applicants/claimants also went in appeal under proviso to para. No,4. M.L.R. 123 before the OSD, Provincial Government, which was dismissed on 29- 8-1973. Their appeal before the Federal Land Commission also failed and was dismissed on 10-5- 1975. However, the Federal Land Commission observed that as the property in question was the State property, for the reasons, that the disputed property was purchased by the former Ruler of Swat on behalf of the State and not in the personal capacity, therefore, the authorities of the Government may deal with the property accordingly.
5. Feeling aggrieved with the orders of the Federal Land Commission, the legal representatives of Badshah Sahib filed Review Petition No,59 of 1980 before the Chairman, Tribunal Land Disputes, who vide order, dated 10-7-1982 allowed the same, set aside the order of the Federal Land Commission, dated 10-5-1975 and restored that of the D.C. Swat dated 7-11-1972. The said order of the Chairman was not challenged further which has attained finality.
6. As the claimants refused to give effect to the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, the legal representatives of Badshah Sahib, respondents, moved an application before the D.C., Swat under para.4 of MLR 123 for the implementation and execution of the orders dated 7-11-1972 and handing over possession of the land in question. The said application was allowed on 12-5-1998 and ejectment orders were passed against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents.
7. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid order of the Executing Court/D.C., Swat, filed Writ Petition No,546 of 1998 in the Peshawar High Court, which was dismissed with costs. Hence, this petition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that the learned High Court has erred in law in dismissing the petition of the petitioner without appreciating the law points involved therein; that the learned High Court has also erred in law in not setting aside the order of D.C., Swat/respondent No,1, dated 25-2-1998, passed against the petitioner under M.L.R. 123 of 1972, to which proceedings the petitioner was not a, party; that the learned Division Bench did not consider the crucial point that D.C., Swat/respondent No,1 had no jurisdiction to execute the order passed under the aforesaid Regulation. He further submitted that Municipal Committee, Mingora being in possession of the disputed property is not liable to eviction by the order of the D.C., Swat under para.4 of M.L.R. 123 and that ineffective and fruitless order has been passed by the D.C., Swat, which has no sanctity in the eyes of law. Learned counsel also referred to Aminullah and 2 others v.
Qalandar Khan and 4 others (1993 SCM R 2307), Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor (AIR 1936 Privy Council 253(2) From Lahore), and Muhammad Akbar v. Dr. Khan Sahib, Chief Minister of West Pakistan (PLD 1957 (W.P.) Karachi 387).
9. Learned counsel for the respondents/caveator pointed out that the predecessor of respondents Nos.3 to 22, namely, Sir Abdul Wadood Mangal Shahzada, K.B.E., alias Badshah Sahib of the former State of Swat, had purchased landed property measuring 2 Kanals and 11 Maralas bearing Khata/Khathoni No,1135/1379, Khasra No,753-755, at Watkay, 'Mauza Mingora, District Swat, from its lawful owners through fourteen registered sale-deeds. Subsequently, on 15-8-1968 in pursuance of Dir, Chitral and Swat (Administration) Regulation, 1969, the administration of the erstwhile State of Swat was taken over by the Provincial Government of West Pakistan and the District of Swat was created. Learned counsel further submits that the Inquiry Commission in its findings upheld the claim of the respondents and the D.C., Swat also passed a proper order, which was set aside by the Federal Land Commission, and the matter was agitated before the Chairman, Tribunal Land Disputes Dir, Swat and Chitral in Review Petition No,59 of 1980. The learned Tribunal after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and for the State also decided the case in favour of the respondents; that Municipal Committee Mingora did not exist prior to 1-11-1976; that the order of the Chairman Tribunal dated 10-7-1982 was not challenged further, which has attained finality; that the petitioner has no claim over the property in dispute; and that the learned High Court also considered the facts of the case in detail and after going through the entire material has rightly dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner.
10. We have gone through the material placed on the record. There is no denying the fact that the disputed property was held to be the property of the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No,9, who had purcahsed the said property through registered sale-deeds, as his personal property, which was not purchased for the then erstwhile State Swat or from the incoming sources of the erstwhile State.
The Chairman Tribunal in its order, dated 12-7-1982 decided the case in the following terms:-- "6. But irrespective of this the order of the Federal Land Commission is not sustainable as it was without jurisdiction. No property could be declared as State property under Regulation 123 of 1972.
Under the said Regulation the disputed land had either to go to the plaintiff or to remain with the defendants. Land could be declared as State property under Regulation 122 of 1972 and that too, on the basis of the recommendation of the Enquiry Conmmission only. There is no recommendation of the Commission in this case' for treating the property as State property. The order of the Federal Land Commission was, therefore, without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside on that account also.
7 . Counsel for the State alleged that this Tribunal had no jurisdiction in the matter as the order of the Federal Land Commission had been implemented. But on going through the file it transpired that there had been no implementation. On the application of the plaintiffs for implementation of the decree in their favour while delivering formal possession to the plaintiffs of the land given to them, the Tehsildar has signed a note that since the property in sale-deeds Exh.D.A. To Exh.D.Q. Had been declared as State property a list of it be sent to the Tehsildar Revenue for making arrangements for the land. There is nothing on the file to show that anything else was done. This could not, therefore, be implementation of the order of the Federal Land Commission because Badshah Sahib was in possession of the land and he had to be disposed of it. There was therefore, no implementation whatsoever. Even if there had been implementation the order of the Federal Land Commission was without jurisdiction and was a nullity. Consequently I accept this revision petition, set aside the order of the Federal Land Commission and restore that of the Deputy Commissioner."
11. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the contentions raised by the learned counsel are not tenable, which cannot be accepted; whereas the submissions made by the learned counsel for the caveator are borne out from the record and are also supported by valid/legal orders passed by the competent Authorities, which could not be ignored.
12. The learned Division Bench of the High Court considered the full facts of the case with cogent and sound reasons dismissed the writ petition. We also do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not relevant and applicable to the facts of the case in hand.
13. The upshot of the above discussion is that we do not find any substance in this petition, which is hereby dismissed and leave is refused with no order as to costs.