' This order shall also dispose of another petition (W. P. No, 500-R-SO), which is inter-connected and involves the same questions of law and facts.
2. The parties are contesting over the transfer of house No, SW-94-R-196, Multan Road, Lahore. It had been occupied by the Police Department as a Police Post since after Partition. On 12th December, 1959. The Central Government accorded approval for its sale to the Police Department (Annexure R/15). The property mentioned in the list attached to the approval is, however, described as 126, Multan Road, Lahore, Police Post, Nawankot. Vide memo No, DSC-V/83, dated 25th February 1960 sent to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner stated that property in dispute can be sold to the Provincial Government on evaluation basis and that it has not been transferred to any person. A copy of it was sent to the Additional Settlement Commissioner with reference to his letter, dated 22nd February 1960. On 9th July 1961. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner issued a certificate (Annexure R/16) that the property in question had not been transferred to anybody, according to the Settlement file of the property. Annexure R./18, dated 23rd October, 1964, says that the payment for the property had been made by the Police Department. There are documents on record to show that the building was so delapidated that Police Department abandoned it. Annexure 'R/27' shows that there was a scheme for its reconstruction.
3. Respondent No, 4, who was a claimant and had not been transferred any other property, applied on 7th December, 1960, for the transfer of this property, under Settlement Scheme No, V. To the Additional Settlement Commissioner, who allegedly transferred the same to respondent No, 4, vide his order, dated 9th December, 1960, and also issued an Appendix (Annexure 'C') A P. T.
0. Was issued on 10th December, 1960. On coming to know of it, the Central Government directed that the transfer of the property in dispute and 9 other properties, be declared to be illegal. An order, dated 12th June 1961 (Annexure R/6) was. Therefore, passed to cancel the P. T.
0.. As the property had already been acquired in favour of the Provincial Government. It is. However, not shown whether this order was served on the petitioner. On 23rd April, 1962, the property in question was included in the auction list. It was, however, deleted on an application made by the petitioner.
4. The order dated 9th December, 1960 of the Additional Settlement Commissioner (See Annexure 'C' on the file of W. P. No, 50U-R40), transferred 10 properties to various persons. This included the property in dispute which was transferred to the petitioner. On coming to know of this order, the Central Government directed the cancellation of all those transfers as per order. Dated 6th March 1961 (Annexure R/6). Only five of the transferees other than the petitioner, filed Writ Petition No, Ii15- R-62 and others Those were accepted vide order, dated 12th April 1967 and the order of the Central Government was set aside. Letters Patent Appeals taken by the Central Government were decided on a different ground. The transferees were asked to challenge the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner as the. Central Government had no authority to cancel transfers. The Settlement Commissioner set aside the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner but on 20th June, 1970, made a reference to the Central Government for the sanction of the sale in favour of the transferees. The Central Government granted the necessary approval. At no stage did the petitioner move in the matter and get the transfer in her favour maintained.
5. As said above, the petitioner did not take any action against the order of the Central Government. No approval for sale of the property to her was either obtained from that Government.
She also did not challenge the transfer of the property in favour of the Police Department. She in fact took no action since 1962 uptil 1974. On 23rd December, 1974, she paid the transfer price and applied to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for issuance of the Transfer Order. This was duly done. She thereafter obtained possession and sold the property in question to the two petitioners in Writ Petition No-500-R-80. It is contended on their behalf that they demolished the whole buiilding and have already built 22 shops in its place. It is conceded that the plan for the construction of the shops was never sanctioned and that the structure is not authorised.
6. On 6th November, 1978, the Settlement Commissioner (Urban) referred the matter to the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore. He heard the parties and held that as the Additional Settlement Commissioner never transferred the properties to the petitioner, the issuance of the Transfer Order was had in law. He, therefore, recalled the same. It is against that order that the present writ petitions have been filed,
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Annexure 'C' (placed on the record of W. P. No, 500-R-80) to say that the property in question had been validly transferred to the petitioner by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. It was. Therefore. Pleaded that the Settlement Commissioner tell in error by holding in the impugned order that the Additional Settlement Commissioner did not transfer the property to the petitioner. The operative part of the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner is as under :- "To sum up, therefore, a claimant not in possession of a house, has not been transferred under paras. 1, 2 and 3 of the Schedule to the Act, is entitled to its transfer, provided his claim is at least 50% of the value of the house, in case the value of the said house exceeds Rs, 25.000, and it such a claimant is the sole applicant for that house, without having to take part in the drawing of lots. It is not legally necessary to await further instructions from the Chief Settlement Commissioner regarding the specific form, in which the applications have to be made or for the publications of a separate scheme on the subject. The present petitioners, therefore, are fully entitled to the transfer of the houses shown against their names in the table given under para.
1. As these houses have not so far been transferred under' paras. 1, 2 and 3 of the Schedule to the Act. They should be directed to. File in the necessary affidavits. The learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner should issue the necessary transfer documents."
8. As said above, the claim of the petitioner is based on the order dated 9th December 1960 passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner which was allegedly set aside by the Central Government. The same order of the Central Government was held to be without lawful authority in the case of another transferee Mst. Saeeda Begum in Writ Petition No, 1115-R/62 decided on 12th April, 1967. In the Letters Patent Appeal No, 200/67 taken against the above order, the parties were left to challenge the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner in a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner. The Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 20th June, 1970, held the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner to be without lawful authority. He.
However, observed that sanction of the Central Government be sought for the transfer of the properties to the claimants to let them settle permanently. It is thus evident that though the petitioner did not challenge the order of the Central Government yet the result could have been the same, as in other cases even if she had done that. The petitioner, therefore, cannot successfuly rely on the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 9th December, 1960 for a valid title or right.
9. At any rate, the Additional Settlement Commissioner allowed the transfer of the disputed property, to the petitioner, as the house had not been transferred under paras. I, 2 and 3 of the Schedule to the Act. The petitioner was also asked to file an affidavit. Thus the right of the petitioner, if any, was conditional. A portion of the affidavit filed by the petitioner on 23rd November, 1974 stated that {{URDU TEXT}} ' This makes it quite clear that she was not only conscious that the Police Department was acquiring the property but subjected her right to theirs.
10. The facts given above, thus leave no manner of doubt that :-
(i) The Central Government had approved sale of this property to the Police Department much earlier than the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner.
(ii) That that order of the Central Government could be validly passed under. Section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitalion) Act, 1958.
(iii) The property was not available on 9th December, 1960 when Additional Settlement Commissioner allowed its transfer to 'the petitioner.
(iv) That it was found in a revision petition that the said order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner was not valid.
(v) That the transfer of the petitioner had in fact been cancelled on 12th July 1961 (Annex. R/6 in W.
P. No, 500-R-80) and the petitioner did not take any action in the matter.
(vi) That the respondent paid the price of the property in 1964.
(vii) The petitioner took no steps from 1962 to 1974. Even thereafter she got the transfer subject to the right of Police Department.
(viii) The construction raised at site is unauthorised.
11. The section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, as it then stood, provided for two was of disposal of properties in the compensation pool. One was in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule. By the other, the Chief Settlement Commissioner could do so in any other manner as may be approved by the Central Government. As the Chief Settlement Commissioner resorted to the second method in this case, much earlier than the Additional Settlement Commissioner passed his order on 9th December, 1960 the property in question was not available in the compensation pool, for its disposal under the first way. Again, section 10 being subject to the Act and the Rules and not the Schedule, the order passed thereunder shall supersede any order passed under the Schedule or a scheme made thereunder. The transfer made in favour of the petitioner thus cannot be maintained on any ground.
' In view of the above, I find no merit in these petitions and dismiss the same with costs.