1. FAZLE AKBAR J:----This appeal by ,special leave is from the judgment and order of the Letters Patent Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan at Lahore upholding dismissal of the Writ Petition No. 1171 of 1961, by a learned Single, Judge of that Court.
2. The facts briefly are as follows; The appellant,' Syed Niaz A.I Shah who is a claimant displaced person was allotted in 1949 about one kanal of land at Plot No. B/VII-1-S; 3, Railway Road, Jhelum by the Rehabilitation Authorities.
3. Later he, with the permission of the said authorities put up a structure on the said landuse as a D Class Bus Stand. On commencement of the Settlement Operations he applied for transfer of the said plot to him on the ground that be had put up there a Pakka structure with bricks and cement at a cost of Rs. 22,000. The Assistant Settlement Com--missioner after inspecting the site reported on 29th January, 1960 to the following effect :- "I have visited the spot. All constructions are of permanent nature. The applicant is a claimant and may be transferred the plot to him under rules."
4. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, however, on inspection found that the structure put up by the appellant was of a temporary nature and therefore rejected his application and ordered for disposal of the plot by auction. The Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner while rejecting his appeal observed :- "The appellant's contention is that he has constructed the Bus Stand under the orders of the Martial law authorities and the building consists of a Chhappar and a room. On the request of the appellant I inspected the site today and find that the construction over the open plot cannot be considered as permanent structure. It is neither a house nor a shop. The lower Court was, therefore, perfectly justified in rejecting the appellant's request."
5. The appellate order was also upheld by Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner in. Revision.
6. While his second revision application was pending before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner passed an order transferring the said plot to respondent No. 2, Messrs Yar Muhammad Khan Saeed Ahmad Khan, as it formed part of the courtyard of their building. The above order was also challenged by the appellant and ultimately it came up in revision before the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Mr. Farzand A.I Khan, Settlement Commis-- sioner acting with powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, upheld the findings of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and dismissed both the revision petitions. The appellant then challenged his order in the writ jurisdic--petition of the High Court. This appellant in support of his contention that he had constructed a number of rooms on the said plot relied on a plan alleged to have been sanctioned by the Municipal Committee of Jhelum. In view of the findings of the Settlement Authorities that the spot inspection showed only a chhappar and a room on the `said plot the learned Single Judge was unable to place any reliance on the alleged sanctioned plan. He therefore, rejected the petition and his order was also upheld on appeal by the Letters Patent 'Bench.
7. Special leave to appeal was granted in this case to consider the follow--ing two questions --.
8. "(i) Whether a finding of fact of the Settlement Authorities arrived at by ignoring a mass of relevant evidence was unassailable in the writ jurisdiction as held by the High Court, and
(ii) Whether the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner reviewing his order for the auction of the plot was an order made in the valid exercise of his jurisdiction."
9. Dr. Nasim Hassan Shah, the learned counsel for the appellant has however, failed to point out the `mass of relevant evidence' which the Settlement, Authorities had ignored. 'Both the Deputy Settlement Com--missioner and Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner on spot inspection found only a chhappar with a room on the disputed plot. It seems that before the High Court an attempt was made to prove that the appellant had constructed several rooms on the said plot in accordance with a sanctioned plan. .On a perusal of the plans on which the appellant has relied we find .That one relates to the Bus Stand Himalaya Transport Company Limited and the other is of the Bus Stand of this appellant but there is nothing to show that the appellant's site plan was sanctioned by the Municipal Committee. Dr. Nasim Hasan Shah realising his difficulty, attempted to rely on a certificate of the Chief Officer, Municipal Committee, dated 26th March, 1964 to show that there was a Pakka building on the disputed plot. This certificate states that the appellant's Bus Stand had been constructed on this plot after obtaining sanction from the Municipal Committee. But as already stated the appellant failed to produce any such sanctioned plan. In any event this certificate 'dated 26th January 1964 was obtained long after disposal of the revision petition on 10th June, 1961. This gives an impression that if there is any Pakka structure on the land, it must have been constructed after the disposal of the case by the Settlement Authorities. In these circumstances we are unable to accept the contention that the Settlement Authorities had arrived at their conclusions by ignoringany relevant evidence in this case.
10. Similarly the second ground is also without any substance. It is true that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner bad no authority to review his order. Hence his order transferring the property to respondent No. 2 may be described as irregular. The order dated 10th June, 1961 passed by the Settlement Commissioner however, cured this irregularity because he bad ample power of revision suo motu under section 20(3) of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 to correct' any error thatmight have crept in the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. From the order of .The Settlement Commissioner it is clear that he himself fully went into the merits of the case and then transferred the house to respondent No. 2 Messrs Yar Muhammad Khan Saeed Ahmad Khan because the disputed plot constituted a part of front courtyard of their building. This he had full power to do.
11. For the reasons stated above we are of the opinion that the High Court was justified in declining to interfere with the order of the Settle--ment Commissioner.
12. This appeal therefore, fails and is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.