' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SAEED, J.---This appeal, with leave of the Court, is directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 9-9-2002.
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated, are that the father of the appellant filed a declaratory suit before the Deputy Custodian Kotli in respect of suit-land. His suit was dismissed by the said Court. An appeal was filed- by him before the Custodian which also met the same fate. A review petition was filed before the Custodian which was accepted. Consequently. The suit was decreed in favour of the father of the appellant. The respondents filed a review petition before the Custodian. Their review petition was allowed and the judgment earlier recorded in favour of the appellant was vacated. This order of the Custodian was assailed through a writ petition before the High Court which was dismissed by the learned Judge in the High Court vide judgment under challenge dated 9-9-2002. Hence this appeal with leave of the Court.
3. Mr. Muzaffar Ali Zafar, the learned counsel for the appellant, argued that respondents Nos.3 to 7 were not made party in the original suit by the father of appellant, therefore, they were not competent to avail the review jurisdiction of the Custodian. According to him, the review petition was filed by these respondents after 13 years, 1 month and 20 days, therefore there was no justification to allow the same as it was hopelessly time-barred. He contended that the land in dispute was purchased by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant through oral sale. A mutation was attested to that effect in 'Dogra Regime' but during the disturbance of 1947, the record has been lost. However, there was a 'Parcha Patwar' containing entry of oral sale available with the father of the appellant on the basis of which he filed a suit before the Deputy Custodian Kotli against non-Muslim which was rightly decided in his favour by the Custodian. He criticized the subsequent judgment of the learned Custodian whereby while allowing the review petition of the private respondents the order earlier passed by his predecessor was vacated.
4. Mr. Muhammad Azam Khan, the learned counsel for the respondents, strenuously controverted the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. According to him, when any glaring illegality is shown to the Custodian he can invoke his review jurisdiction at any time. According to him the land in dispute was owned by one Sardar Ali from whom two shares of the land were purchased by the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.3 to 7 while one share was purchased by predecessor-in-interest of the appellant. The respondents Nos.3 to 7, after the death of their father, were necessary party but they were not made answering respondents in his suit by the father of the appellant. He further argued that as the order was obtained at their back from the Custodian under a mistaken belief of law by the father of the appellant, therefore, they were justified in law in seeking review of the order passed against their interest at their back.
5. We have considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. The case of the appellant is that he purchased the land measuring 16 Kanals, 14 Marlas from Sardar Ali and subsequently purchased some land from Sundar Das, Kershan Lal and Sardari Lal sons of Dewan Chand before the partition but that record has been lost during the disturbance of 1947. On the basis of this claim he filed a suit for declaration in the Court of Deputy Custodian Kotli. The maintainability of the said Court was challenged before the District Judge who opined that the Sub-Judge can assume the jurisdiction as Deputy Custodian only when the sanction is granted under section 41 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957 by the Custodian. The learned Sub-Judge, thereafter, made a reference to the Custodian whereby the sanction was accorded to him for disposal of the case by the Custodian. A review petition was filed before the Custodian by Abdul Shah, father of the appellant. His review petition was answered in the following terms:-- "The order is reviewed and it is directed that the proceedings already recorded by the learned Deputy Custodian, in his capacity as such, are protected and the same shall not be held invalid for want of sanction of this Court under section 41 of the Act. The Deputy Custodian shall proceed with the case from that sage onwards and decide it on merits."
6. From the record made available by the appellant, it is proved that Abdul Shah, the father of the appellant, purchased one share whereas Kala Shah purchased two shares of the land measuring 16 Kanals, 14 Marlas from Sardar Ali. The parties are closely related to each. Other. The father of the appellant is the brother of respondents Nos.3 to 7. Under section 41 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957, it is within, the exclusive competence of the Custodian to determine the status of any person that whether he is or is not an evacuee or to declare any property as evacuee or non- evacuee. In the present case the learned Custodian in his elaborated A order has held that the appellant has failed to prove that he purchased the suit-land from non-Muslims before the partition. The findings of the learned Custodian were, therefore, rightly upheld by the High Court as these did not suffer from any misreading or non-reading of evidence on the part of the Custodian.
' In view of the above, this appeal having no force, is dismissed with costs.