' The petitioner was transferred Property No, S-77-R-110, Jail Roads Lahore on 29-10-1959. The matter was taken up by the respondent No, 3 through revision petitions before the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner who himself inspected the spot and found "at the spot that these quarters (asked for by the respondent No, 3) are lying in a dilapidated condition and are situate in a highly unhygienic atmosphere. Under no circumstances, they could have been treated as separate unit inasmuch as they are intimately connected with the main house. Their disposal as an independent unit is otherwise, too, impossible because permission to build them a new will not be given by the Corporation of the City of Lahore on such a small plot as this, having access from nowhere except from the main house. I have already observed that the rooms are situate in Gulberg, where permission is not granted to build unless the plot on which construction is sought is at least two kanals. The area covered by these outhouses is hardly of few marlas. For these reasons it is impossible to dispose of these rooms as independent unit. I am, therefore, of the view that the case was correctly decided in the Courts below and thus both the petitions fail and are dismissed herewith." This is vide order dated 5-7-1961. The respondent No, 3 filed a second revision petition which was dismissed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 8-8-1961. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued a Permanent Transfer Deed on 16-10-1961. The respondent No, 3 challenged the orders of the Settlement Authorities by means of Writ Petition No, 1218/R/61 which was dismissed in limine on 15-11-1961. She filed L. P. A. 301/61 which was also dismissed in limine on 21-11-1961. Another attempt was made by the respondent No, 3 before the Chief Settlement Commissioner by way of a review petition which too was dismissed on 4.9-1962. Nothing was done for the next for years when the respondent No, 3 filed a miscellaneous application for transfer of a portion of the aforesaid property on 8-10-1966. For the next seven years, the respondent No, 3 did not move in the matter until she filed a civil suit against the petitioner on 22-11-1973. She, then, filed an application for disposal of her CH form under the Revised Settlement Scheme No, VIII on 7-6-1974. The respondent No, 3's civil suit was dismissed on 20-12-1974 and her appeal on 6-2-1976. On her applications dated 8-10-1966 and 7-6-1974 afore mentioned, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner passed an order on 30-9-1976 transferring the portion in he possession marked by her in the site plan A. B. C.
D. And issued her Transfer Order on 11-1-1977. The petitioner filed an application befor the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to withdraw the aforesaid two order but the application was dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction o 29-9-1977. The petitioner has filed the above-titled writ petition challengin the orders of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 30-9-1976, 11-1-1977 and 29-9-1977.
2. Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan, Advocate who appeared for the petitione yesterday had stated that he had the authority to say that vide the basi, order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 30-9-1976 the respondent No, 3 has been transferred the portion in her possession marked by he and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on the site plan as A. B. C. D., certified copy of which has been placed on record, and petitioner does no object thereto notwithstanding the fact that the property stood transferr in its entirety in favour of the petitioner who has also been issued Permanent Transfer Deed as long ago as 1961 and the efforts of respondent No, 3 t get a part thereof had failed when her Writ Petition and L. P. A. Were dismissed. The case was left over for today. Mr. Shahid Rehman, dvocate for the petitioner has stated that the offer is in the field. If the despondent No, 3 accepts the same, the petitioner is prepared to allow the despondent No, 3 to retain portion A. B. C.
D. Marked by her on the site-plan and signed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner when he passed his order dated 30-9-1976 but obviously the right of the respondent No, 3 shall be confined to that and she will have no right to any area beyond A. B. C. D. He has also stated that since the petitioner has paid the entire transfer price of the afore-titled property whereafter he was issued Permanent Transfer Deed, the petitioner shall not claim any price of the portion A. B. C. D. From the respondent No,
3. The learned counsel for the respondent No, 3 stated hat the latter should have a passage for exit from the portion to the road. To this, Mr. Shahid Rehman, Advocate for the petitioner agrees.
3. Mr. S. M. Nasim, Advocate for respondent No, 3, with whom is present Mr. Abid Ali husband of Mst.
Mumtaz Begum respondent No, 3, states that the offer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is acceptable to him. It is clearly understood that the rights of respondent No, 3 shall be confined to the portion in her possession marked A. B. C. D. By her in the site-plan and signed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner alongwith his order dated 30-9-1976 and the passage for exit to the road. As this is being given by the petitioner in whose favour Permanent Transfer Deed had been issued, the respondent No, 3 shall be entitled to refund of the price paid by her to the Settlement Department.
4. Mr. B. A. Chaudhary, Advocate who appeared for the newly impleaded respondents (i,e, 4 to 7) previously on 7-6-1980 and obtained adjournment stated that he appears only for respondent No,
4. From the particulars, it appears that respondent No, 5 is the wife of the respondent No, 4 and would obviously know of the proceedings and the other respondents Nos. 6 and 7 would not be unaware, in normal course of human conduct, of these proceedings. Voile face of Mr. B. A.
Chaudhary, Advocate can hardly help them. Besides that there is nothing on the record to show that these newly impleaded respondents have purchased from respondent No, 3 a part of the portion transferred to the latter and they have been impleaded by the petitioner on account of a statement earlier made by the husband of the respondent No, 3, obviously their rights are confined to what was transferred by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to the respondent No,
3. Theirs is only derivative title. They will also be bound by the doctrine of lis pendens. The submission of Mr. B.
A. Chaudhary adopting the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent No, 3 in opposition to the writ petition loses its efficacy when the learned counsel for the respondent No, 3 has entered into a compromise with the petitioner as stated above.
5. The submissions of the learned counsel for the Settlement Department in support of the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 30-9-1976 passed on the motion and in favour of the respondent No, 3 lose their significance in view of the compromise between the petitioner and the respondent No,
3. Moreover, the transfer of the entire property was made in favour of the petitioner as long ago as 29-10-1959, which was upheld after spot inspection by the learned Settlement Commissioner, whereafter on receipt of the transfer price, the petitioner was issued Permanent Transfe Deed on 16-10-1961. The orders on challenge were upheld with the dismissal of the Writ Petition No, 1218/R-1961 on 15-11-1961 and L. P. A. No, 301/61 on 21-11-1961. The Department became functus officio. Miscellaneous Applications of the respondent No, 3 were unmaintainable. No proceedings were pending. The law under which Settlement Department was created and exercised jurisdiction, was repealed from 1-7-1974 vide Act XIV of 1975f The Department ceased to exist and was, so to say, buried. It could not recreate itself. Deed do not come to life by themselves.
The order dated 30-9-1976, impugned in the petition, is totally without jurisdiction and nullity. It is arbitrary on the face of it as it purports to interfere with what was concluded after protracted litigation some fifteen years ago. I wish the Officer had the sense to read what an immortal Chief Justice of this Court had said some twenty-two years ago in a reported judgment Abdul Ghafoor and 3 others v. The Rehabilitation Commissioner, West Pakistan, Lahore (1), "Dispensation of justice must be in recognized legal forms, so that at some stage in his struggle for existence. a person in these surroundings coup have a sigh of relief and say to himself : "This is my own, my second native land."
6. For the reasons given above, the impugned order dated 30-9-197 and consequential order dated 11-1-1977 are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The petitioner will have his costs from the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. As the petitioner has allowed the respondent No, 3 to retain the portion in her possess on marked by her in the site-plan A. B. C. D. And signed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 30-9-197 with a passage to the road, the respondent No, 3 shall be entitled thereto, Any amount paid under the impugned order, the respondent No, 3 shall be entitled to refund. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
(1') PLD 1958 Lah. 48 THE END