1. ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.-The dispute in this case concerns an evacuee house bearing No. N/554 situate in Mohallah Waris Khan, Rawalpindi. It was transferred to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, namely, Muzaffar-ud-Din, in 1959 by a Deputy Settlement Commissioner, on the basis of his possession as a local, for an evaluation price of Rs. 8,280. He did not make any payment until his death on the 13th of April, 1963. A demand was then issued in 1965 and again on the 17th of June, 1967 but as no payment was made even then, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, by his order dated the 25th of August, 1967, cancelled the transfer from the name of Muzaffar-ud-Din, and included the property in the auction list.
2. However, on the 25th of September, 1967, the petitioners made an applicationfor the exclusion of the property from the auction list, and upon this application the Additional Settlement Commissioner allowed them 15 days time to make the payment as prayed for by them. A copy of this order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner has not been placed on the record, nor has its exact date been disclosed by the learned counsel. For the petitioners. However, it is admitted that as this order was also not complied with, the property was actually put to auction anti sold in favour of Mst. Ikram-un-Nisa, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, on the 13th of November, 1967. A P. T. D. Was also issued on the 6th of June, 1969.
3. The petitioners did not take any steps to challenge the transfer of the property in favour of Mst.
4. Lkram-un-Nisa in November, 1967, until the 28th of December, 1973, when they filed a revision petition, which was accepted by the learned Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 16th of March, 1974. He cancelled the auction sale in favour of Mst. Ikaram-un-Nisa, and restored the transfer in favour of the petitioners.
5. This order of the Settlement Commissioner was challenged by the respondent by way of filing a writ Petition in the Lahore High Court, which has been accepted by a learned Judge of that Court by his order dated the 12th of November, 1977. He has held that the learned Settlement Commis-- sioner was disqualified from dealing with the case, as he had earlier dealt with the matter in his capacity as Deputy Settlement Commissioner, and could not, therefore, sit in revision on his own order. He has further observed that when the revisional order was made on the 16th of March, 1974, Mst. Ikram-un-Nisa bad been dead for several years, having died on the 22nd of August, 1971, but no attempt was made to bring her legal representatives on the record. Finally, the learned Judge bad taken note of the fact that the petitioners had themselves moved the Settlement autho--rities on the 25th of September, 1967, for the grant of 15 days time to make the payment of the evaluation price, and although that request was allowed by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner on the same date, they did not make 'any payment in pursuance of that order, and kept quiet for six years, during which period a Permanent Transfer Deed had also been issued in favour of Mst.
6. Ikram-un-Nisa. On these findings the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the impugned order made by the learned Settlement Commissioner was without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
7. Leave to appeal is sought on the following grounds;
(a) Even if the Settlement Commissioner was disqualified from hearing the case in revision on the ground that he had already dealt with the case as Deputy Settlement Commissioner, the High Court should have remanded the revision petition for a resh hearing by a competent officer, instead of substituting its own decision for that of the Settlement authorities ;
(b) That similarly the matter should have been remanded for fresh disposal if the High Court found that the revisional order had been made against a dead person; and
(c) That the Additional Settlement Commissioner, who gave 15 days time to the petitioners to make the payment of the evaluation price in 1967 should have appointed a guardian for this purpose, as the two petitioners were admittedly minors on that date.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, we are, of the view that there is no merit in these submissions.
9. The main question in this case is not whether the case should have been remanded or not, but whether the petitioners had any subsisting interest in the property when they filed their revision petition in 1973. From the facts narrated in the preceding paragraphs, it becomes abundantly clear that whether minors or not, they had become aware of the transfer of the property in the name of their late father Muzaffar-ud-Din, and in thisbehalf they had themselves made an application to the Additional Settlement Commissioner for the grant of 15 days time to pay the arrears. TI request was granted but they did not take any steps to comply with this order for six years, when they filed a revision petition against the original order of cancellation of the property passed by the Deputy Settlement Commission It is clear that the original order had merged in the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, which had been passed on the express request of the petitioners themselves. In these circumstances there was no question of the Additional Settlement .
10. Commissioner appointing a guardian for compliance with his order. The order made by the Additional Settlement Commissioner was not in the nature of any contract between the Settlement Department and the petitioners, so that they should now take shelter behind their minority on the relevant date.
11. On account of the failure of the petitioners to comply. With an order passed on their own application, the property was subsequently validly disposed of in auction, and a P. T. D. Was properly issued in the year 1969. In these circumstances the learned Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction to reopen the case after the lapse of so many years, for which no satisfactory or adequate explanation was forthcoming on the record. The learned Settlement Commissioner had, therefore, acted with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction on this ground alone, leave alone the other points noted by the High Court, namely, that he was the officer who had already dealt with the matter as Deputy Settlement Commissionerand that he had passed an order against a dead person with notifying her legal representatives.
12. On this view of the matter the learned Judge in the High Court was justified in setting aside the revisional order dated the 16th of March, 1974 passed by the learned Settlement Commissioner, and in maintaining the transfer of the property in dispute in favour of the respondents.
13. The petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.