' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.--- This petition is directed against the judgment, dated 8-6-2000 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench through which revision petition filed by the respondents against the judgment of the First. Appellate Court has been accepted.
2. The property in dispute was transferred by the Settlement Department to the respondents much prior to 1968 and P.T.D. Was also issued prior thereto. On the report of the Deputy Settlement.
Commissioner, the Settlement Commissioner took up the matter for cancellation of the P.T.D. On the ground that the property was an evacuee trust property as such, did not form part of compensation pool, therefore, could not be transferred and proceeded to cancel the P.T.O. And P.T.D. Issued in favor of the respondent by order, dated 22-1-1971. It appears from this order that the respondents-transferees were not present before the said officer in spite of notice as mentioned in the said order.
3. The respondents filed suit from which this petition has arisen for declaration that the said order was void. It was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement. The necessary to file the said suit arose because on the basis of the order dated 22-1-1971 of the Settlement Commissioner, the petitioner raised a demand of rent of the property from the respondents alleging that they had become its tenants.
4. The trial Court through judgment dated 31-5-1977 decreed the suit by finding that the transfer made in favor of the respondents by Settlement Commissioner of the property in dispute which though was found to be evacuee trust property was protected under the law, therefore, the Settlement Commissioner was not justified in law to cancel the P.T.O. And P.T.D. Appeal filed by the petitioner was, however, accepted by the First Appellate Court through judgment dated 6-12-1980 and the suit was dismissed against which revision petition filed by the respondents has been accepted by the learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench through the impugned judgment, dated 8-6-2000 against which leave is sought.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of rule laid down in the case of Mst. Mariam Bi and 2 others v. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Religious and Minority Affairs and 4 others PLD 1990 Kar. 427 submitted that the onus was on the respondents to prove that the transfer of the property made by the Settlement Department was bona fide.
6. We are afraid, this is against the express provisions of section 10 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 which in express terms declare that any evacuee property transferred by the Settlement Department bonafidely about which P.T.D. Was issued prior to 1968 shall be deemed to be valid unless a question was raised about the bona fides of the utilization of the property as evacuee property.
7. We find that no question was raised at any stage on behalf of the petitioner in any proceedings that the transfer was not bona fide. In the written statement filed in this suit, the suit was defended on the basis of the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 22-1-1971. The demand of the recovery of rent was raised on the basis of this order. The said order of the Settlement Commissioner was not valid, for it was not noticed that P.T.D. Could not be cancelled by the Settlement Authorities after they-had become functus officio and further that such transfers had been validated by operation of section 10 of the said Act.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to argue that the learned Judge of the High Court has committed error of law by holding that there was no distinction between transfer of property by Settlement Department against verified claim or otherwise.
9. We would refrain from expressing any opinion about the question whether the property was transferred against verified claim or otherwise and leave the same to be decided in some other case where it would be necessary to decide. Suffice it to say that in the present case, at no stage question was raised that the property had not been utilized by the Settlement Department bonafidely.
10. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed and leave refused.