1. ' MUNIB AHMED KHAN, J.---This petition is in respect of property admeasuring 8400 sq. Ft. Situated at Tando Adam District Sanghar The dispute between the parties in respect of ownership of evacuee property was started in 1950's and after a round up to Honourable Supreme Court the dispute landed before the concerned officer in terms of the order of Honourable Supreme Court dated 13-1-1981 passed in Civil Appeal No,K-6 of 1973. The relevant para. Of order of Supreme Court is reproduced as follows:-- "However, there is no escape from the conclusion that on the finding that prevailed with the High Court that the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 1-9-1960 violated the principles of natural justice, the only proper course open to the High Court was to remand the case to the Settlement Commissioner for fresh disposal, according to law.
2. ' On this view of the case, this appeal must succeed, and is accordingly allowed, with the direction that the case shall be heard and decided afresh, by the competent authority under the law."
3. ' After remand of the case to Settlement Authorities, it was marked to the competent authority/notified officer who decided the case in the light of facts as well law involved as per its order dated 20-10-1983.
4. ' Now the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the said order on the ground that in terms of order of Honourable Supreme Court, the matter would have been decided by the Settlement Commissioner and the Notified Officer has wrongly assumed the jurisdiction to decide the issue. He has cited PLD 1979 Lahore 330 and 1988 CLC 1880.
5. ' The PLD 1979 Lahore 330 is on the point that Deputy Settlement Commissioner, to whom the matter was remitted, was not notified officer and in any case, he has no jurisdiction or power from another notified officer. In another authority 1988 CLC 1880 it has been held That the Additional Settlement Commissioner, before whom appeal was pending had to pass final order thereon, he had no jurisdiction to remand the case.
6. ' Mr. Masood A. Noorani Addl. A.-G. Stated that the Notified Officer, Mr. Mukhtiar Ahmed Khan has decided the case by his order dated 29-10-1983 while the case, after remand, was handed over to him in 1981 and vide notification dated 14-6-1980 the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Mukhtar Ahmed Khan has specifically been nominated as authorized officer for disposal of the cases which may be transferred to him by the Member, Board of Revenue Sindh or by Settlement Commissioner and that after the remand of the matter by the Honourable Supreme Court the Settlement Commissioner has sent the matter to the Notified Officer appointed under section 2(2) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 vide Notification No,SCK/80- ADMN/774, therefore, he was competent person to decide the issue. He has also stated that the Notified Officer has also mentioned source of his authority and has specifically mentioned in the said order.
7. ' I have also gone through section 2(2) of the Evacuee Property Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal)
8. Act, 1975 and find that all proceedings before the authorities shall stand transferred for final disposal of such officer as may be notified by the Provincial Government. The said officers were also authorized to decide the case which may be remanded by the Honourable Supreme Court or High Court. For convenience sake the said section is reproduced as follows:-- "2(2). Upon the repeal of the aforesaid Acts and Regulations, all proceedings which, immediately before such repeal, may be pending before the authorities appointed thereunder shall stand transferred for final disposal to such officers as may be notified by the Provincial Government in the official Gazette and all cases decided by the Supreme Court or a High Court after such repeal which would have been remanded to any such authority in the absence of such repeal shall be remanded to the officers notified as aforesaid . "
9. 'In the circumstances and keeping in view the section 2(2) and notification issued by the government, I am not convinced with the arguments of Syed Madad Ali Shah, Advocate and held that the order has been passed by competent authority i.e, Deputy Settlement Commissioner, a Notified Officer under the law.
10. ' Syed Madad Ali Shah has also assailed the order on the ground that he has derived the title from the order of Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 1-9-1960 for which implementation he approached the Additional Settlement Commissioner and by its order dated 28-2-1967, he issued necessary directions. He further submits that the said order was challenged by the respondent in Settlement Revision No,9 of 1967 and that Revision was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner, Tharparkar at Sanghar by order dated 23-8-1967. He has further submitted that he is in possession of the property and has made certain payments following the order in his favour. To support this contention he has relied upon PLD 1992 SC 80 and NLR 1979 Civil 276.
11. ' In PLD 1992 SC 80, it has been held that the construction over the shop built by appellant could not be transferred to any other party as such building is not covered by scheme No,VI of Para-13, of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, while a building constructed on the evacuee building site can be transferred on payment of the prevailing market value plus 50% on such market value if the person in possession would same was not its allottee but-- has come into its possession unauthorizedly. In NLR 1979 Civil 276. It has been laid down that transfer of any property under this Scheme can be made in favour of any party who has constructed the building on the said open building site.
12. ' On the third leg the learned counsel has stated that the plot in question could not have been auctioned to the respondent as the petitioner was in possession. On this count, he has relied upon PLD 1964 (W.P.) Karachi 365 and 1988 SCM R 1156. In the 1st authority it has been held that pending claim of person in possession of property in question, it cannot be disposed of by auction. In Second authority, it has been held that order on transfer of land in favour of respondent without disposal of form and without hearing the appellant could not be sustained in law.
13. ' The above contentions of the learned counsel can be countered by the order of the Supreme Court itself reproduced above, which specifically says that the finding of the High Court in respect of the order of Additional Settlement Commissioner, dated 1-9-1960 is correct and the said order violated the principle of natural justice and since that order has been taken out from sequence, which has been cited as a main and basic order by the petitioner, therefore, he has lost the ground and in the absence of any order in his favour, he simply has to object on the finding which has been given by the Notified Officer. The Notified Officer in his order has detailed each and every fact and has disapproved the contention of the petitioner regarding his submission of Form-P at the relevant time, as well as making of certain application since 1955. The Notified Officer has discarded the version of the petitioner by its order by stating that there was no P-Form available on record despite search in the concerned office. To grasp the factual position it will be necessary to reproduce the factual position whereby the Notified Officer has taken up the issues of the petitioner in the impugned order:- "The facts forming the background of the case have already been discussed in the remand order dated 13-1-1981 of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan passed in Civil Appeal No,K-6 of 1973 and, therefore, it may not be necessary to repeat the same in this order. However, for the sake of brevity and for the purpose of this order, it may be sufficient to state that one Abdul Latif Khan, the father of the applicants had purchased plots bearing Custodian Nos.1-A/61 to 61/J (corresponding to City Survey Nos.D/902/18, 19 and 9) measuring 8400 sq. Ft., situated at Tando Adam, District Sanghar, in the open public auction held on 25-2-1960 for the highest bid of Rs,4,600. The auction was duly approved by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Hyderabad on 27-7-1960. On payment of the auction price, P.T.O. Dated 10-5-1963 was issued to the auction purchaser.
14. Subsequently Abdul Latif Khan died and thus the names of the applicants Nos.1 and 2 were inserted in the P.T.O. By the Deputy Settlement Commissioner concerned Permanent Transfer Deed already stands issued in the names of the Legal Heirs of the deceased i.e, applicants Nos. 1 and 2 on 29-9- 1966.
15. ' The main assertions of the opponents are that they are the occupants of the plots in suit since pre-partition days and have also put up some construction thereon. That they had been applying since 1955 for the transfer of the plots in question and one of their applications was addressed to the then Chief Settlement Commissioner, Pakistan, which was forwarded by him under his letter No,439-R-N-Ref/59 dated 15-10-1959 to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sanghar, for disposal according to law. In the written arguments, the learned counsel for the opponents has contended that 'P' Form was also filed and sent by post to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sanghar on 1-11-1958. It is contended by the opponents that Deputy Settlement Commissioner failed to take any action on various applications of the opponents and on the letter of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated 15-10-1959 and on the contrary the plots in suit were disposed of through auction held on 25-2-1960 and the highest bid offered by late Abdul Latif Khan was accepted. In this connection, it is stated that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, concerned was requested to find out from his record if any such application of the opponents was received by him from the Chief Settlement Commissioner, under Memo. Dated 15-10-1959 and whether any 'P' Form was filed by the opponents. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, concerned has informed under his Memo. No, DSC/NWS/SGR/83-86 dated 23-2-1983, that the relevant Register of Registration of 'P'
16. Forms has been thoroughly checked by him but no entry exists therein to show if any 'P' Form was filed by Suleman Makrani and others. The record received from the office of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, also does not contain any such 'P' Form and or application in the name of Suleman Makrani and others.
17. ' I have given my anxious thought to this plea of the opponents that they have been moving applications for the transfer of the plots in question, but nothing is forthcoming on record of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, concerned. In this context, the plea of the opponents that they had been applying for transfer of the plots in suit since 1955, have no force for the simple reason that the Settlement Organization was not in existence in the year 1955. The Settlement Organization under the Federal Government was created in the year 1958 as a consequence of enactment of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 (Act No,XXVIII of 1958) on 26th March, 1958. According to the section 3 of the aforesaid Act, all Urban Evacuee Properties were acquired by the Central Government for the purposes of the Act. It is therefore, followed that the plots in question, which were evacuee properties could not have been transferred to the opponents in the year 1955. The other aspect of the case is that the disposal of building sites was governed by Settlement Scheme No,VI. Applications for transfer of building sites from persons who had constructed permanent building on evacuee plots were invited by the then Chief Settlement Commissioner, Pakistan vide Notification No,1042-F and M-Reh/59 dated 12th November, 1959 and such applications were to be submitted by 30th November, 1959 to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner of the area where the building site was situated. From the report of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, concerned, it is established beyond any shadow of doubt that no application in 'P' Form for the transfer of the plots in question was made by the opponents within time or thereafter."
18. ' I have also perused other authorities cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. In NLR 1979 Civil 276, it has been held that an occupant to be transferred the land in his possession on his application but here in the case, the factual position in the impugned order shows that no application was available. Under the settlement laws an application to be made within given time but the petitioner has failed to submit any proof before the competent authority.
19. ' I have carefully gone through the order of the Notified Officer as well as record of the case with the assistance of learned counsel and find that there is no illegality which is committed while on the other hand he has discussed everything in detail and from any corner, the appellant was not entitled to the claim. The notified officer was competent to pass order as has been authorized by section 2(2) of Act as well as by notification issued in 1980. The learned counsel for the appellant could not satisfy this Court on the issue that the petitioner filed claim or P Form and that the order of notified officer is incorrect in respect of factual and legal aspects.
20. ' In the circumstances, this petition has no merits and is dismissed.