' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The petitioners seek leave to appeal from the judgment, dated 11-12-2001 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, in Writ Petition No,31 of 1992.
2. An evacuee Bungalow No,CL-55-A, Civil Line, Mayo Road, Rawalpindi (hereinafter referred to as the property in dispute) was earmarked in the name of the respondent on 21-12-1959. A provisional transfer order dated 25-5-1960 and a permanent transfer document dated 12-12-1973 of the property in dispute were also issued in her favour. The- property in dispute remained in occupation of various departments of the Government till 1982 when it was eventually vacated. The respondent demolished the same being in a dilapidated condition. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner in his capacity as a Notified Officer, by transfer order dated 15-3-1978, transferred an area of one Kanal out of the excess area of the property in dispute and its adjoining Bungalow No,55-C in the name of late Ghulab Khan under Settlement Scheme No,VIII without notice or association of the respondent. The said order dated 15-3-1978 was, therefore, recalled by the Notified Officer by order, dated 16-9-1978 after hearing the parties. The legal heirs of late Ghulab Khan filed Writ Petition No,1022/R of 1978 against the aforesaid order, dated 16-9-1978 which was dismissed by the High Court, by judgment, dated 27-3-1985 and their Civil Appeal No,421 of 1986 was also dismissed by this Court by judgment, dated 20-3-1991 whereby the entire property in dispute was held to have been transferred to the respondent without their being any excess area.
3. Thereafter, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi, being in possession of the adjoining Bungalow No,CL-55-C made an application dated 18-5-1991 to the Deputy Commissioner, Rawalpindi with the request to redemarcate the property in dispute together with Properties No,CL-55-B and CL-55-C being available evacuee properties. The Tehsildar, Rawalpindi, pursuant to order dated 20-5-1991 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, prepared a demarcation report dated 23-5-1991, without associating the respondent, whereby the original area of 44875 sq.
Feet of the property in dispute was reduced to 30738 sq. Feet. Therefore, the respondent filed Writ Petition No,31 of 1992 against order, dated 20-5-1991 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the report dated 23-5-1991 made by the Tehsildar, Rawalpindi. The same was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench by the impugned judgment. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. The learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab, argued that the Revenue Authorities were well within their jurisdiction to redemarcate the property in dispute while demarcating the other adjoining evacuee properties bearing No,CL-55-B and CL-55-C. It was next submitted that the redemarcation of all the three properties did not adversely affect the rights of the respondent over the property in dispute. It was finally contended that there was no legal impediment for the Government functionaries to demarcate the evacuee properties in order to avoid or remove any encroachment of any property.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that the Revenue Authorities had no business to reduce the area of the property in dispute under the garb of re-demarcation proceedings and to go behind the final transfer and demarcation orders of the Notified Officer.
6. We have heard the learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab and the learned counsel for the respondent at length. The adjoining Bungalow No,CL-55-B and CL-55-C were evacuee properties.
The Deputy Commissioner or the Tehsildar were not shown to be the Notified Officers after repeal of the evacuee laws. Therefore, the demarcation of the property in dispute by them was rightly found by the High Court to be without lawful authority. The order dated 16-9-1978 made by the Notified Officer had already attained finality. The same was upheld by the High Court as well by this Court in Civil Appeal No,421 of 1986 whereby the entire property in dispute of Bungalow No,CL-55-A was held to have been permanently transferred to the respondent without there being any excess area.
The impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Court. This is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
7. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.