' SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.--- This appeal, by leave of this Court, is directed against the judgment, dated 14-4-2000 of the learned Sindh High Court and arise out of the following circumstances.
2. The case of the appellant was that the property in, dispute, which is a house, was put to auction by the Settlement Authorities, he was a highest bidder to whom Provisional Transfer Order (P.T.O.) was issued on 20-1-1961 followed by Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) issued on 12-10-1964. On a petition moved before the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board (for short ETPB) by the appellant under sections 8 and 10 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act (No,XIII), 1975 the transfer in his favour was validated. However, on the revision petition of Asif Ahmad and Syed Murtaza Ahmad, respondents Nos.5 and 6 (the tenants in the premises) the said order was set aside by the Federal Government and the case was remanded to the learned Chairman, ETPB vide order, dated 18-4-1996. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged this order before the High Court and this Court in Civil Petition No,444-K of 1996 which was withdrawn on 28- 10-1997. Pursuant to the order of remand, the matter was taken up by the Chairman, ETPB. This time, he reached the conclusion that section 10 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act (No,XIII), 1975 did not cover the case of the appellant as transfer on the basis of auction was not, inter alia, contemplated by the said section. This was vide order, dated 6-2-1998 which was challenged by the appellant before Federal Government in a revision petition which was dismissed vide order, dated 13-10-1998 against which Writ Petition No,665 of 1999 was dismissed by the learned Sindh High Court on 14-4-2000. On 21-11-2000, leave was granted to consider whether benefit of section 10 of Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act (No,XIII), 1975 was available to the appellant?
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the auction price having been adjusted from the compensation book of the appellant, it was a case of bona fide utilization of evacuee trust property for satisfaction of a claim and auction being one of the recognized modes of transfer, under the Settlement Laws, his case was covered by section 10 of the aforesaid.
Act. He also relied on the judgment, dated 25-1-1995 of the Chairman, the ETPB, according to which the transfer in favour of the appellant was validated. His grievance was that respondents Nos.5 and 6 had no locus standi to assail the said order in a revision petition before the Federal Government.
4. On the other hand, Mian Qamar-uz-Zaman, who represents the ETPB submits that the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (No,XXVIII) 1958 contemplated Compensation Pool as well as trust pool. While the evacuee properties went to the Compensation Pool, the evacuee trust properties fell within the Trust Pool and the Settlement Authorities could only transfer properties out of Compensation Pool and not the Trust Pool. His next contention is that disposal by auction is not contemplated by section 10 of Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal)
Act (No,XIII), 1975.
5. The submissions of the learned counsel have been considered. It will be appropriate to reproduce section 10 of the aforesaid Act:--- 10 Validation of certain transfers.-- (1) An immovable evacuee trust property,---
(a) .....................................................................................................................
(b) if situated in an urban area and utilised bona fide under any Act for transfer against the satisfaction of verified claims in respect of which Permanent Transfer Deeds were issued prior to June, 1968, shall be deemed to have been validly transferred by sale to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, and the sale proceeds thereof shall be reimbursed to the Board and shall form part of the Trust Pool.
(2) .......................................................................................................................
(3) If it is decided that a transaction referred to in subsection (1) is not bona fide, the Chairman may pass an order cancelling the allotment or transfer of such property: Provided that no decision under subsection (2) or order under subsection (3) shall be taken or passed in respect of any property without giving the person affected a reasonable opportunity of being heard."
6. The Chairman, ETPB dismissed the application of the appellant for validation of the above mentioned transfer for the reasons that it was not a bona fide transfer, purchase through auction, did not amount to transfer in satisfaction of claim, the first application moved before the Chairman ETPB by the appellant was in 1994 (after 30 years of the auction) he was out of possession and no attempt was made to enter into possession, occupants' request for transfer was rejected by Settlement Authorities on 3-11-1959. The learned High Court confirmed these findings with the observation that the Settlement Authorities had no jurisdiction to deal with an evacuee trust property, section 10 was, therefore, required to be strictly construed. It was found that there was nothing in the record to indicate that appellant ever had a verified claim and, therefore, the finding of the learned Chairman, ETPB that the utilization of this property was not bona fide was affirmed.
These are findings of fact not liable to be interfered with in these proceedings.
7. We will like to observe here that section 10 of Act XIII of 1975 was intended to provide relief to those claimants to whom Settlement Authorities had transferred evacuee trust properties erroneously in a bona fide manner. A deliberate or wanton transfer of evacuee trust property through auction was not intended to be covered by the said provision. Perusal of the order of the Chairman, ETPB shows that a number of documents were produced by the departmental representative to dispute the genuineness of the P.T.D. And P.T.O. These documents also clearly reflect that the property was described as "Gau Shala". Thus, even a cursory look at these documents should have posted the Settlement Authority with the knowledge of the property in dispute being evacuee trust. The mere fact that payment of the price was paid through a compensation book, does not establish that it was that of the appellant and he was a displaced claimant. As far as the other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, it is baseless because the order, dated 25-1-1995 of the Chairman, ETPB was set aside by the Federal Government and the appellant had unsuccessfully challenged it up to this Court.
8. For what has been stated above, we find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed.