' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- This judgment will dispose of Civil Petitions Nos.2747-L and 2748-L of 2002 as both these petitions arise out of the same judgment and the same facts.
2. It was through an order dated 3-1-1972 of the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board of the Government of Pakistan that the property in dispute was declared to the an evacuee trust property having stood in the name of Mahent Ganga Dass as Chella Mahent Duwarka Dass. As a matter of concession it had, however, been directed by the said Chairman that if any portion of the said property had been transferred by the Settlement Organization in favour of any entitled person before 30-6-1968 then the said transfer order shall not be disturbed in view of the above noticed declaration and the status of the property in question and such transfer will continue to stand.
3. The claim of the petitioners was that a provisional transfer order was issued in their favour before the target date i.e, in the year 1960 and the property in dispute stood transferred to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner well before the said date. Reliance was placed by the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners on Tahir Ali v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1987 Kai, 290 and Assistant Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property v. Muhammad Ayub and others 2003 SCM R 841. Ratio of both these judgments is that if a provisional transfer order (P.T.O.) had been issued in the name of a person and such a person had also deposited the total price of the property provisionally transferred to him before the target date i.e,; 30-6-1968 then even if no P.T.D. Had been issued in the name of such a transferee he shall be deemed to have satisfied the conditions to qualify for the concession offered to the transferees of such property before 30-6-1968. The learned Advocate Supreme Court has not been able to indicate any proof produced before the Honourable High Court regarding the payment of the price of the property in question before 30-6-1968. To the contrary the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondent No,4 has drawn our attention to a letter appearing at page 19 of Part-II of the paper book of C.P. No,2747-L of 2002, according to which some part of the dues had remained unpaid even on 6-7-1968 i.e, after the expiry of the target date.
4. In this view of the matter no exception could be taken to the impugned judgment of the learned High Court passed in Writ Petition No,16446 of 1998 and Civil Petition No,2747-L of 2002 is, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused.
5. It had also rightly been held by the learned Judge in Chambers that since Hameed-ur-Rehman stood declared not to be the transferee of the property in question, therefore, his efforts to seek eviction of Abdul Rauf respondent from the said property were misconceived. The said conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge is also not open to any exception as a result whereof Civil Petition No,2748-L of 2002 is also dismissed and leave refused.