1. ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.--This petition seeks leave to appeal ,against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dated the 28th of October, 1975, by which the Letters Patent appeal filed by the petitioners, was dismissed.
2. The appeal before the Division Bench had arisen out of an order made by a learned Judge in chamber, whereby he had dismissed a writ petition filed by the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest Mirza Moazam Baig to the matter of the transfer of an evacuee Ahata situate in the town of Kot Radha Kishan in the Lahore District. The Ahata had been put to auction on the 16th of June, 1960, and Mirza Moazam Baig had offered the highest bid of Rs. 50,000. The auction was confirmed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on the 5th of August, 1962.
3. The respondents had objected to the auction on the ground that they had constructed a building on the Ahata and had also applied for its transfer on BS form. Their application in this behalf was dismissed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on the 26th of June, 1960, and their second application was similarly dismissed by the Additional Settlement Commis--sioner on the 29th of June, 1960. Thereafter the respondents filed an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, which was also dismissed on the 5th of August, 1960. The respondents then filed a revision petition, which was accepted by the learned Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 21st of February, 1961, and the case was remanded for disposal of the property in accordance with the provisions of Settlement Scheme No. VI. In pursuance of this odder of remand, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred the property in dispute to the respondents by his order dated the 20th of March, 1961.
4. The predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners filed a review application in July, 1962, which was rejected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. He then filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed by a Single Bench on the 9th of March, 1966, and his Letters Patent appeal also now stands dismissed by the Division Bench. The learned Judges in the High Court have taken the view that the respondents were entitled to the transfer of the property on the basis of their application in form BS, and the property could not have been put to auction without a proper disposal of their application in this behalf.
5. Leave to appeal is sought on the grounds that the order of the learned Settlement Commissioner dated the 21st of February, 1961, remanding the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, was bad in law as no notice was given to the auction purchaser Mirza Moazam Baig, although a hearing was mandatory in terms of subsection (5) of section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958; and the finding that the respondents had filed a BS form stood contradicted by their own admission before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, as mentioned in his order dated the 5th of August, 1960, by which their appeal was dismissed.
6. After examining the various documents available on the record, and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we have formed the view that this is not at all a fit case for our interference.
7. It is true that under subsection (5) of section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, it was necessary for the learned Settlement Commissioner to give a hearing to the auction purchaser, but in the peculiar circumstances of this case, this irregularity appears to be immaterial. It seems to be the admitted position that the respondents were in possession of the Ahata in dispute. Before the auction held on the 16th of June, 1960, they had submitted an application for the transfer of the property in form BS on 11-5-1960, and an entry of the application is to be found at Registration No. 991 in the relevant CSC-II Register. A certified copy of this application has been placed on the record. We further find that on the 13th of June, 1960, the respondents had made an application to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Pattoki, praying for the transfer of the Ahata to them on the ground that they had raised a construction thereon at their own expense, after obtaining proper sanction from the Rehabilitation Department. These applications were not disposed of before the auction was held on the 16th of June, 1960. In these circum--stances, even if the petitioners had been given a hearing by the Settlement Commissioner, the result would not have been different and it would have been necessary to remand the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for disposal of the property in accordance with law, after consider in the applications made by the respondents.
8. It is correct that in the order made by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on the 5th of August, 1960, there is a statement that respondents conceded that they had not made any application for the transfer of the property, but the statement obviously appears to be the result of some misunderstanding on the part of this Officer, as the certified copy of the BS form of the respondents has been obtained from the records of the Settlement Department, and bears the date 11-5-1960. Even otherwise, the application made on a plain paper by the respondents on the 13th of June, 1960, i. e. Three days before the date of the auction also contained a prayer for the transfer of the Ahata on the ground that they had raised a construction thereon. Even if, therefore, there was no formal application in form BS the request made by the respondents in their application dated the 13th June, 1960, would amount to a request for the transfer of the Ahata, and this request had to be disposed of before the property could be put to auction. On this application on the 13th of June, 1960, there was an order mad by the Additional Settlement Commissioner that the auction was not to be confirmed until the appeal was decided. In these circumstances, it is clear that the entitlement of the respondents to the transfer of the property on the basis of their possession and having raised a construction there on required to be disposed of in accordance with law before the property could be said to have become available for disposal by auction.
9. For all these reasons, we are of the view that the property in dispute has been rightly transferred to the respondents, and the learned Judges in the High Court were right in refusing to interfere with the same.
10. The present petition fails, and is hereby dismissed.