' The dispute in this case relates to the transfer of an evacuee hous bearing No, C/343 and situated in Koocha Beli Ram, Gumti Bazar, Lahore. The house was transferred to the petitioner on his NCH form followed b issuance of Provisional Transfer Order in his favour on 9th August, 1960 The petitioner associated with his father Mohammad Ismail for adjustment of an amount of Rs, 3,900 from his Compensation Book on 14t November, 1960 towards the transfer price of the house. The association deed was accepted and adjustment of Rs, 3,158.08, allowed by th Settlement Department. The total transfer price of the house was lixe. At Rs, 6,644 on 30th April, 1962 by the Department. The balance o Rs, 3,485 payable in eleven monthly instalments was calculated after allowing the adjustment of amount from, the Compensation Book referre to above.
2. The petitioner asserted that he was not served with Appendi XI under Settlement Scheme for clearance of the balance of transfe price.
3. The petitioner applied for reduction in the transfer price, o account of the property having been damaged during the disturbance of 1947. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner vide his order date 27th December, 1966 determined the evaluation price at Rs, 5,200 on the basis of the assessment of Municipal Corporation Lahore and recommended the case to Additional Settlement Commissioner for further reduction up to 20% in the transfer price. The Additional Settlement Commissioner after inspecting the spot vide his order dated 4th February, 1967 directed reduction of the price upon 20% under para. 26 of the Settlement Scheme No, I and simultaneously vide his letter dated 16th February, 1967 informed Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Centre 111 for necessary adjustment.
4. Notwithstanding the reduction in the transfer price, a notice under para. 24 of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 and para. 2 of Settlement Scheme No, VIA was issued to the petitioner for the deposit of Rs, 3,485 within the prescribed period. On petitioner's failure to clear the balance price the property was resumed on 3rd July, 1968 and thereafter auctioned in favour of respondent No, 4 who alienated the same in favour of respondent No,
5. The petitioner asserted that he was not served with the above-mentioned notice.
' The petitioner filed appeal which was accepted by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 9th April, 1970 and the case remanded to Deputy Settlement Commissioner for restoration of the property if it was established that the petitioner was not served with resumption notice and had paid the transfer price.
5. In post-remand proceedings, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner held that notice was served upon the petitioner through his son Abdul Hafiz and further that property was validly resumed and purchased in auction by respondent No, 4 who had also obtained P.T.D. In his favour. The petitioner's appeal against the aforementioned order was rejected by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 12th .August, 1971 and his revision petition failed on 31st December. 1973 before the Settlement Commissioner. This petition is directed against the above-referred orders.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that before the issuance of notice under para. 24 of the Schedule in the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 and para. 2 of Settlement Scheme No, VIII on 28th December, 1967, the evaluation price of the house was already reduced by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and Additional Settlement Commissioner respectively and intimation in that behalf sent to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner vide letter dated 16th February, 1967 by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The notice was not served, upon the petitioner and it also did not conform to the actual position as the petitioner had already paid the transfer price and he was not required to pay the balance of Rs, 3,485 as incorrectly mentioned in the alleged notice
7. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand stated that procedure followed for the resumption of the property was quite valid. The petitioner defaulted in payment of the transfer price despite notice. He however, did not controvert, the contention of his adversary that the transfer price was finally reduced by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, before issuance of the notice for clearance of the balance price,
8. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have been considered in the light of the documents referred by them on the file. It is established that the transfer price of the house was reduced by the Additional Settlement Commissioner before issuance of the notice for resumption of the property. Despite the reduction of the transfer price the notice contained an amount of Rs, 3.485 payable by the petitioner, which was contrary to the record. The service of valid notice under para. 24 of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)
Act, 1958 upon the defaulting transferee and hi non-compliance therefore was condition precedent for lawful resumption of the property. The notice itself being invalid even if served upon the petitioner, did not authorise respondent No. 1 to cancel the transfer. Th cancellation of transfer order thus was based on erroneous assumption of valid service of notice upon the petitioner. The property was not available for disposal under Settlement Scheme No VIII. The subsequent transfer in favour of respondent No, 4 and thereafter alienation in favour of respondent No, 5 was of no legal effect. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner acted in haste and issued invalid notice, without adverting to the fact that the etransfer price of the property having suffered reduction by order of the competent authority The issuance of P.T.D. In favour of the respondent No, 4 as a consequence of the illegal transfer in his favour did not confered any right in the property because order which formed its basis has been declared to be of no legal significance.
9. In the result, this petition is accepted, the impugned cancellatio' of the transfer of property as held in the order of the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 together with subsequent alienations in favour of respondent No, 5 are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. There will be no order as to costs.