' KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.--The dispute in this case is about a house bearing No, 100-B, Aziz Shaheed Road, Sialkot Cantt. It was transferred by the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner to Muhammad Hassan Yar Khan, petitioner No, 2, on his C. H. Form on 23-2-1961. He entered into an agreement of association on 12-3-1961 with Mst. Haseeb-un-nisa, respondent No, 1, herein. On the basis of that agreement a P. T.
0. Was issued in favour of the said respondent on 20-3-1962. According to the terms of the agreement, it is pleaded before us, 1/4th of the property was to be retained by Muhammad Hassan Yar Khan whereas 3/4th was to go to Mst. Haseeb-un-nisa who was allegedly to pay the entire price as also all the public dues (e.g. Rent). It appears that there arose some dispute between Muhammad Hassan Yar Khan and Mst. Haseeb-un-nisa regarding the terms of the agreement of association particularly about the liability to pay the arrears of rent. Mst. Haseeb-unnisa, therefore, on 16-11-1970 filed an application that the amount of arrears of rent to the extent of Rs, 3,812 is actually the liability of Muhammad Hassan Yar Khan and as such may be recovered from him. The learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner accepted this application and directed that the money aforesaid should be adjusted from the compensation book of Muhammad Hassan Yar Khan (petitioner No, 2 herein).
2. Muhammad Hassan Yar Khan then on 12-3-1973 applied to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner complaining that the arrears of rent should not have been recovered or adjusted from his compensation book because according to the terms of the agreement of association they were the liability of the associate. He prayed that the entry showing the adjustment of the aforesaid amount from his compensation book should consequently be deleted. The learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 11-7-1973 held that no doubt according to him it was the liability of the associate but as the amount had already been adjusted in the compensation book therefore he was helpless in the matter.
3. Muhammad Hassan Yar Khan filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner on 6-3-1974, who directed that the lady should be asked to pay the arrears of rent failing which the association agreement may be cancelled.
4. In pursuance of the aforesaid order the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner then took up the matter and on 1-6-1974 issued a notice to the associate to pay the amount of arrears of rent within 15 days. Though this notice was served on the associate on 3-6-1974 but without waiting for the period of 15 days given in the notice, the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner in haste on 17-6-1974, cancelled the agreement of association on the ground that the lady has not paid the amount of the arrear of rent as demanded from her. He further held that she had not cleared even the balance of Rs, 1,463 from the main transfer price as well. After making this order, again in haste, he on 19-6-1974 confirmed another agreement of association of even date between Muhammad Hassan Yar Khan, petitioner No, 2 and Nawab Din, petitioner No, I herein. It was then followed by a transfer order (T.
0.) of the same date in the name of the new associate.
5. The matter was agitated in revision by Mst. Haseeb-un-nisa (associate) which was dismissed by the learned Settlement Commissioner on 28-4-1975 who held that the order of the cancellation of association agreement by the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner had been passed in great haste without waiting even for the period of 15 days given in the earlier notice itself, which as already mentioned above was served on he associate only on 3-6-1974. He also observed that the subsequent Agreement of association between petitioner No, 1 and petitioner No, 2 similarly suffered from the same haste. After making these observations, however, he held that as in the meantime the transfer order (T. O.) has been issued to the new associate and the property in this way permanently stood transferred to him therefore he could not re-open this matter.
6. At this juncture Mst. Haseeb-un-nisa filed a Constitutional Petition being W. P. 407-R/75 which was accepted by the High Court on 2-7-1975 on the ground that the cancellation of agreement of concession on 17-6-1974 before even waiting for the period of 15 days giving in the demand notice was without lawful authority. The High Court further held that the transfer order issued to .The new associate on 19-6-1974, similarly suffered from the same haste, and as it was otherwise subject to appeal and revision, therefore, the plea that it had attained finality or for that reason it could not have been set aside by the Settlement Commissioner had no substance.
7. The petitioners (i.e, the new associate and Muhammad Hassan Yar Khan) above come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the aforesaid order of the High Court to this Court.
8. The main point argued by the learned counsel was that if cancellation of agreement of association by the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner as ordered on 17-6-1974 was illegal, the High Court should have remanded the case back to that officer to decide it afresh in accordance with law after referring to the terms of the relevant agreement. The contention has no merit and on the facts and in the peculair circumstances of this case, we think that the remand as is being asked for by the learned counsel would have been a sheer exercise in futility. The reasons are that according to the Settlement Scheme No, VIII as it stood amended on the relevant date no transfer in which 25% of the amount had been paid could be cancelled or resumed, and according paragraph 17 of that scheme the only legal course to be adopted was to recover the balance amount if any, as arrears of land revenue. For the relevant provisions to this effect in the Settlement Scheme No, VIII. See PLD 1973 Punjab Statutes 257 and PLD 1974 Punjab Statutes 83 which contain the necessary references to the relevant Gazettg notifications etc. On the subject. The view which we have taken in this case, it may be mentioned was also taken by this Court in Mst. Majeeda Begum v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner, etc. In Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No, 1034 of 1979, decided on 11-3-1980.
9. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismisse.