' NAS1M HASAN SHAH, J.-This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 5th September, 1974 passed in Writ Petition No, 1239-R/1966.
' The facts which form the background are that a shop consisting of two portions on the ground- floor with some residential accommodation on its top was transferred jointly in favour of Muhammad Bibi (petitioner herein), Mst. Aisha Bibi (now deceased), Niaz Ahmad and Riaz Ahmed Respondents Nos. 4 and 5, herein, on their joint CS form, on 17th November, 1959. The transferees, in order to pay the transfer price, entered into an agreement of association on the same day with Muhammad Ali, Respondent No, 6 (now deceased) and represented by his legal representatives whereby 2/3rd of the property was to be transferred to him while the rest of1/3rd was to remain with the transferees. This agreement of association was allowed and a P. T.
0. Issued according to which 2/3rd was transferred to Muhammad Ali and 1/3rd to Aisha Bibi and the remaining tranferees. Nobody applied to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to set aside the aforesaid .Agreement of association. Or to challenge the P. T.
0. Issued in pursuance thereof.
' On 7th February, 1961 however, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner himself sought permission of the Additional Settlement Commissioner to review the order of transfer dated 17th November, 1959 on the ground that two shops and one choubara not to be transferred to Mst. Aisha Bibi and others against their C S form. Permission to undertake the review proceedings was granted but it was, however, found by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner ultimately dealing with the review matter that the two portions did not constitute two independent shops and therefore the order dated 17th November, 1959 tranferring the two portions with the residential portion on top as one shop to Aisha Bibi and Muhammad Bibi did not require an interference. The said transfer was, accordingly, confirmed and it was specified that Mst. Aisha Bibi and Muhammad Bibi will share the property in the ratio of 1/3rd and the 2/3rd. This order was passed on 22nd April, 1961.
' As the name of Muhammad Ali was not mentioned in the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 22nd April, 1961 he moved an application for rectification on the ground that his name had been omitted to be shown as transferee of 2/3rd share. This application was accepted by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 14th September, 1962 and his name was added as transferee, according to the terms of the agreement. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, however, further noticed that the agreement of association whereby he was transferred the property to the extent of 2/3rd share was written on Rs, 2 stamp paper and not on Rs, 4 stamp paper as required by the rules. The document was impounded and Muhammad Ali was asked to deposit Rs, 22 as penalty and it was observed that his name was to be added in the P.
T.
0. When he produced the receipt showing the payment of the penalty of Rs,
22. This was duly done on 15th September, 1962.
' Dissatisfied with the above-mentioned order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Muhammad Bibi, petitioner herein, challenged it by filing an appeal which was accepted by the Additional Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 25th March, 1963 and he restored the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 22nd April, 1961 passed on review. The effect being that Muhammad Ali's name was eliminated from transfer, as also those of Niaz Ahmad and Riaz Ahmad, who were not mentioned in the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 22nd April, 1961. Accordingly, two revision petitions were filed before the Settlement Commissioner to challenge the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner ; one by Muhammad Ali and, the second, by Niaz Ahmad and Riaz Ahmad. Both the revision petitions were disposed of by the learned Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 20th April, 1966. The order dated 22nd April, 1961 was set aside and the initial order dated 17th September, 1959 passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferring the property in favour of Aisha Bibi, Muhammad Bibi, Niaz Ahmad and Riaz Ahmad jointly was restored. However, the revision petition of Muhammad All was rejected on the ground that as the agreement of association upon which he was relying was insufficiently stamped and was also not attested by a First Class Magistrate, therefore, the same was inadmissible and could not be acted upon.
' Aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Commissioner Muhammad Ali filed a writ petition (W. P.
No, 1239/R/66) in the Lahore High Court. The learned Judge in the High Court held that when the agreement of association was executed on 17th November, 1959 no rules prescribing formalities such as the agreement must be executed on Rs, 4 stamp paper and should be attested by a First Class Magistrate or Oath Commissioner had been promulgated. The matter was governed by the provision of para 33 of the Settlement Scheme No, 1 whereby a proposed transferee was authorised to associate with another claimant for the purpose of making payment of transfer price. Hence the agreement of association executed between the parties on 17th November, 1959 could not be rejected on the ground that it was not on a duly stamped paper or not attested by the persons as required by the rules promulgated later on i.e, on 13th February, 1960. Moreover, even if the document was insufficiently stamped the same could be acted upon after having been impounded and the penalty realised. Thereafter, there was no impediment in acting upon the agreement of association. On this view of the matter, the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 20th April, 1966 was set aside and the P. T.
0. Issued on 17th November, 1959 in pursuance of the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 17th November, 1959 was restored. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
' We have heard Mr. A. K. Shaukat, learned Advocate for the petitioner in support of the petition and after hearing him we find no ground for interfering with the order by the learned Judge in the High Court. The perusal of the record shows that the agreement of association dated 17 November, 1959 was not challenged by any of the parties to it nor was any application submitted to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner or another authority to cancel it or modify the orders passed in pursuance of it. It was the Deputy Settlement Commissioner himself, who commenceded the suo motu proceedings to review the order dated 17th November, 1959 on the ground that the property could not be transferred as one unit as it consisted of more than one shop. The modifications in the order dated 17th November, 1959 occurred in the proceedings which took place pursuant to the said action. The property having been found to be one unit it was not necessary to make any change in the said order and the learned Judge in the High Court rightly held that there was no good ground for not acting upon the agreement of association entered into be the parties and why the order passed for its implementation should not be given effect to. The view taken by the learned Judge is not only eminently proper but quite just and fair.
' The upshot is that this petition must fail and is dismissed hereby.