1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The facts of the case stated briefly are that an evacuee building site was included in an auction list published on 30-3-1969. Accordingly, it wag put to auction on 29-4-1969 and the highest bid of Rs. 310 was offered by the petitioner which was ultimately approved by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 3-5-1969. The petitioner claims to have paid the transfer price and was issued a Permanent Transfer Order on 26-5-1969. On 11-6-1969, the petitioner sent a notice under section 30 to Khushi Muhammad and Wali Muhammad brothers of respondent No. 4 intimating them about the transfer of the plot in his favour. After receipt of the said notice, Wali Muhammad, the Attorney of respondent No. 4 herein, filed an appeal on 22-9-1969 against the order dated 3-5-1969. This appeal is alleged to have been heard ex-parte and was disposed of on 27-11-1969. Herein it was directed that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner should summon Mr. Abdul Hameed, who was acting as Deputy Settlement Commissioner in the year 1959 and record his Statement whether respondent No. 4 has admitted a B. S. (Building Site) Form within prescribed period. Consequently, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner recorded the statement of Mr. Abdul Hameed Khan and held by his order dated 13-11-1970 that it was established from the statement of Mr. Abdul Hameed Khan that the plot in question was in possession of respondent No. 4 who had filed a building site form under Settlement Scheme No. VI within the stipulated period. Accordingly, he was entitled to the transfer of the plot in dispute and we ordered accordingly. The auction held in favour of the petitioner was held to stand automatically cancelled and the appeal of respondent No. 4 was accepted.
2. Dissatisfied with this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, who remanded the case back to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for a fresh decision after visiting the spot and ascertaining if respondent No. 4 was in possession of the plot in dispute before the target date. This order was challenged by respondent No. 4 through a writ petition but the same was dismissed with the result that the order of remand passed by the Deputy Settlement Commis--sioner was upheld. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner thereupon again took up the matter and held that the B. S. Form of respondent No. 4 was, indeed, pending decision and respondent No. 4 was entitled to the transfer of the disputed plot which was ordered to be transferred to him. This order was passed on 5-1-1973. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Additional Settlement Commissioner which, however, was rejected by him vide his order dated 28-4-1973 and so also was his revision on 18-3-1973. The petitioner thereupon moved the Lahore High Court by filing a writ petition (W. P. 1616-R/74) challenging the orders of the Settlement authorities transferring the plot to respondent No. 4 and cancelling the auction in his favour mainly on the ground that respondent No. 4 had never submitted a form and that he had not been able to establish this from the record. The learned Judge in the High Court dealing with this matter held that the point raised by the petitioner was purely a question of fact. He further observed that there had been protracted litigation between the parties and the case was remanded twice for verification of the submission of the form and the possession of the respondent. The orders passed were quite elaborate and after thorough inquiry and in the circumstances no good ground for interference existed. The writ petition was, accordingly, dismissed on 5-11-1974. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. Before us it was contended that after the issuance of the P. T. D. The Settlement authorities had become functus officio and the transfer in favour of the petitioner could not be set aside. This contention does not appear to have been raised before the Settlement authorities where the matter was considered at great length in several forums.
4. Be that as it may we have observed more than once that if a settlement form has been filed seeking transfer of an evacuee property the same cannot be disposed of through auction or otherwise, without first disposal of the said form. In the instant case, it has been found as a matter of fact that respondent No. 4 was in possession of the evacuee building site and did submit a form for its transfer. In these circumstances the action of disposing of this property through auction without first attending to the form filed by the respondent was void and of no effect and in these circumstances we would refrain from interfering with the orders of the Settlement authorities ordering the transfer of this property to respondent No. 4.
5. Ch. Qadir Bakhsh, learned counsel for the petitioner, in the end submitted that the petitioner was a claimant and had been drawn into participating in the auction of an evacuee property by the Settlement Department itself and that he has spent some 11 years in trying to defend the auction made in his favour by the Settlement Department. He prayed that the Settlement authorities be directed to transfer some other property in lieu of his verified claim.
6. We regret that we cannot issue any such direction. However, we may observe that the petitioner should be given some other property which may be available, if it is possible under the law.