1. ' MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment dated 31st of May, 1976, whereby a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court at Lahore has dismissed as incompetent an Inter Court appeal filed by the petitioner herein under the proviso to subsection (2) of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance as amended by the Laws Reform (Amendmnt) Act VIII of 1973 from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of that Court in dismissing the Writ Petition-No, 703-R of 1967 filed by the present petitioner against the respondents herein. The dispute in this case relates to the extent of the share transferred to the petitioner in the evacuee cinema known as Nishat Cinema, Sialkot. This cinema was allotted to the petitioner and Mian Bashir-ud- Din,predecessor of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 as under by the Rehabilitation Board :--{{TABLE}}
(1) Petitioner.
(2) Mian Bashir-ud-Din predecessor of respondents Nos. 1 to 4.
2. Others. 22 % share 45% share 33% share ' After the commencement of the settlement operations the Chief Settlement Commissioner by his letter dated 20th of August 1960 provisionally transferred the entire cinema to late Mian Bashir-ud- Din pending the verification of the claim of the petitioner. In course of time, the claim of the petitioner was verified to the extent of Rs, 33,000 by the Claim Commissioner Pakistan. The petitioner therefore, approached the Settlement Authorities for the transfer of his due share in the cinema. On this on the 14th of December 1960, the Additional Settlement Commissioner found that the petitioner was entitled to the transfer of 10% share alongwith Mian Bashirud-Din for the remaining 90% share in the cinema. At the time the price of the entire cinema was determined to be Rs, 7,31,000. Subsequently on the 12th of May 1964 its price was reduced to Rs, 1,48,621.
3. ' In these circumstances the question of the entitlement of the petitioner to retain the 10% share proviously transferred to him was examined at some length by Malik Muhammad Akram Khan, Settlement Commissioner (Industries) in his order passed on the 3rd of July 1963. This order, inter alia, gave rise to a. Writ Petition No, 2241-R of 1963 filed by tin petitioner against it in the then High Court of West Pakistan at Lahore, praying that he was an allottee of 22% share in the cinema how.- in dispute and that as such his share at the time of the transfer should have been fixed at 22 % and not at 10% as done by the Settlement Authorities. This writ petition was disposed of by a learned Judge of the Court with the following observations :- ' It is admitted by the learned counsel for all the parties that the prevailing market value of the Cinema House was tentatively fixed. At Rs, 7,31,000 but now in the year 1964, when the final evaluation had been determined, the price of the evacuee assets in the concern has been worked out to Rs, 1,48,621 vide Memo. No, 1173-RB/64 dated 12th May 1964 issued by the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Industries), West Pakistan, Lahore to both the parties. In this view of the reduction of the price of the cinema house, learned counsel for Mufti Rafiq Ahmad has candidly conceded that since his share was fixed up at 10 % by the department according to the valuation of the cinema house at that time which was earlier fixed, he therefore, does not press his claim for the refixation of his share as he would like to approach the department for the purposes of determination of his share according to the existing price of the evacuee cinema concerned, proportionate to his claim. In this view of the matter learned counsel for Mufti Rafiq Ahmad does not press his Writ Petition and as such, Writ Petition No, 2241/R of 1963 is hereby dismissed without there being any order as to costs."
4. ' It appears that a Letters Patent Appeal No, 1333 of 1966 filed by the respondents herein against the petitioner was dismissed in limine by a Division Bench of the High Court on the 2nd of June 1967.
5. ' In these circumstances, the parties then filed two miscellaneous applications against each other.
6. These were dispose:4 of by a consolidated order passed by Khan Muqarrab Khan, Additional Settlement Commissioner (Industries) with powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Pakistan on the 1st of April 1967. He raised the share of Mufti Rafiq Ahmad petitioner in the transfer from 10 % to 22 % on the ground that the transfer price of the cinema had been reduced from Rs, 7,31,000 to Rs, 1,48,621. This order was challenged by both the parties in the two cross appeals filed by them.
7. These were disposed of together by Mr. Bashir Ahmad, Settlement Commissioner (Industries) with powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 10th of June 1967. He observed as under :- "The shares of co-transferees are to be determined according to, the principles laid down in the Chief Settlement Commissioner's Press Note dated 30-5-1960 issued under para. 16-B of the Schedule to the" Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. According to the principles laid down in the aforesaid Press Note the shares of co-transferees are to be determined according to the amount of their verified claims under Schedule III. This has already been done by.
8. Major Muhammad Iqbal Cheema by his order dated 16-3-1963. I, therefore, set aside the order dated 1-4-1967 of Khan. Muqarrab Khan, Additional Settlement Commissioner (I). The share of Mufti Rafiq Ahmad and Mst. Mahmooda Begum etc, shall, therefore, stand at 10 % and 90% respectively, as already determined by Major Muhammad Iqbal Cheema."
9. ' In these circumstances on the 4th of August 1967, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition No 703-R of 1967 under Article 98 of the then Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. But it was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court at Lahore on the 26th of January 1976. The petitioner then filed an Inter-Court appeal against the judgment which was dismissed as incompetent by a learned Division Beach of the Court in view of the proviso to subsection (2) of section 3 of the Laws Reforms Ordinance, 1972 as amended by the Laws Reforms (Amendment) Act (VIII of 1973).
10. ' The petitioner has therefore, come up to this Court for leave to appeal against the two judgments dated 26th of January 1977 delivered by a learned Single Judge whereby he had dismissed his writ petition on the merits and the judgment dated 31st of May 1976 passed by a learned Division Bench of the High Court refusing to entertain his Inter-Court Appeal an incompetent.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He contended before us that the learned Division Bench of the High Court acted illegally in refusing to entertain his appeal as incompetent under the proviso to subsection (2) of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 as amended by the Laws Reforms (Amendment) Act VIII 1973, as according to the learned counsel the amendment was not retrospectively applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case in which the lis had accrued to him originally on the 4th of August 1967 with the filing of his Writ Petition No, 703-R of 1967. But we find that this contention raised before us is altogether of academic importance simply because the impugned order dated 10th of June 1967, passed by Mr. Bashir Ahmad, Settlement Commissioner A (Industries) partly reproduced above is wholly unexceptionable and the writ petition. Filed by the petitioner against it was misconceived and had been rightly rejected on the merits by the learned single Judge on the 26th of January 1976. It was rightly observed by Mr. Bashir Ahmad that the shares of the co-transferees were correctly determined in accordance with the principles laid down in the Chief Settlement Commissioner's Press Note dated 30th of May 1960 pressed under para. 16-B of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1958 in accordance with the amount of their verified claims under Schedule ILE of the Act as already done between the parties by Major Muhammad Iqbal Cheema in his order dated 10th of March 1963 in proportion to 10% share transferred to the petitioner against 90% share to the predecessor of the respondents. We therefore, find that the transfer of the cinema in this case was made in accordance with law and it did not call for any interference by this Court in these proceedings. This petition has no force and is hereby rejected.