1. DORAB PATEL, J.-One Labha Singh owned two properties in Kharian, a house and a plot of land. The House bore No. 2/298, whilst the number of the plot was 2/295. Both the properties became evacuee and passed to the Compensation pool, therefore, after the Settlement operations began, the petitioner, Sufi Muhammad Karim, in C. P. S. L. A. 302 of 1975, filed an L. H. Form under Settlement Scheme No. VIII on 29-10-1966 for house No. 2/298 (hereinafter called the said house) on the ground that he had been in possession of the house for ten years. His application was allowed by a Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 1-8-1967. Although this order has not been filed, Mr. Shaukat informed us that the P. T. D. For the said house had been issued to Sufi Muhammad Karim on 18-8- 1967. However, the transfer of the said house to Sufi Muhammad Karim was challenged by one Ghulam Hyder, who was a refugee, in an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner.
2. The petitioner in C. P. S. L. A. No. 290 of 1975, Muhammad Fazil, who was incidentally a refugee, claimed to have purchased at an auction a property of the said Labha Singh and his claim was that the said house was part of the property auctioned in his favour. Therefore, he had challenged the transfer of the said house to Sufi Muhammad Karim in a miscellaneous application before the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The Additional Settlement Commissioner disposed of this application as well as Ghulam Hyder's appeal by his order dated 30th October, 1967. It is unfortunate that this order has not been filed. Be that as it may, Mr. Shaukat stated that the case was remanded by this order to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to re-examine the claims of all the parties.
3. On remand, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner heard all the parties concerned and it would appear that Ghulam Hyder was heard through his attorney, because he was in jail. And, by his order dated 10th September, 1968, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner rejected Ghulam Hyder's claim that he had been in possession of the said house and as he held that Sufi Muhammad Karim had been in possession of the said house at the target date, he reaffirmed his order of ist August, 1967, in Sufi Muhammad Karim's favour and rejected Ghulam Hyder's claim.
4. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner also rejected Muhammad Fazil's claim on the ground that he was the auction-purchaser of property No. 2/295, whilst the said House bore No. 2/298, therefore, he held that Muhammad Fazil had no claim whatever to the said house. Both Muhammad Fazil and Ghulam Hyder filed appeals against this order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, but the Additional Settlement Commissioner, who disposed of these appeals by his order dated 5th May, 1969, stated in this order that Ghulam Hyder had withdrawn his appeal, therefore, the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner only examined Muhammad Fazil's appeal and observed after inspecting the record:- "Any way it is an admitted fact that Plot No. 2/295 Kharian was entered on two Serial Nos. 18 and 19 in auction list one belonging to Chuni Lal and the other belonging to Labh Singh and the reserve price pi both the plots is entered as Rs.50, and Rs.250, respectively. It is also found that the appellant purchased the plot on Serial No. Is belonging to Labh Singh with a reserve price of Rs.50, for Rs.1,5N and P. T. D. Has also been issued. But these facts do not give the appellant any title over the house belonging to Labh Singh the price of which has been paid as stated by the respondent to be Rs. 2,268."
5. Accordingly as Muhammad Fazil's appeal was dismissed, he filed a revision before the Settlement Commissioner, and although Ghulam Hyder had withdrawn his appeal, he also filed a revision against the Additional Settlement Commissioner's order in favour of Sufi Muhammad Karim. The Settlement Commissioner had no difficulty in rejecting Muhammad Fazil's revision, because he was of the view that Muhammad Fazil's claim was not supported by the documentary evidence including the auction list. The learned Settlement Commissioner then examined Ghulam Hyder's appeal, and although he rejected Ghulam Hyder's claim, he held that Sufi Muhammad Karim had failed to prove that he had 'been in possession of the said house at the target date. Mr. Shaukat submitted that the claim of Sufi Muhammad Karim was supported by that of two local witnesses, but after referring to the evidence of these two witnesses, the Settlement Commissioner has pointed out in his order of 30th October, 1971, that the claim of Sufi Muhammad Karim was not supported by the evidence of the Chairman of the Town Committee. In these circumstances, the Settlement Commissioner reached the conclusion that the claim of Sufi Muhammad Karim was not fit to be accepted without documentary evidence and he observed that a direction in that behalf had already been given by the Additional Settlement Commissioner in his order of 30th October, 1967, which has not been filed.
6. Now, clearly this order of 30th October, 1967, had become final, therefore, the failure of Sufi Muhammad Karim to produce documentary evidence on the remand of the case in support of his application under Settlement Scheme Nco. VIII was fatal to his claim, therefore, by his order dated 30th October, 1971, the Settlement Commissioner not only dismissed the revision of Ghulam Hyder, but he also set aside the transfer of the said house in favour of Sufi Muhammad Karim. Therefore, Sufi Muhammad Karim filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court against this order of 30th October, 1971, and so did Muhammad Fazil. Both these writ petitions were heard together and dismissed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, on 11-2-1975. Hence these petitions for leave.
7. Mr. Shaukat submitted on behalf of Sufi Muhammad Karim in C. P. S. L. A. No. 30'2 of 1975, that the Settlement Commissioner was not competent to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the Additional Settlement Commissioner. We are unable to accept this argurnent, because the Settlement Commissioner was entitled) in the exercise of his discretion to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal, subordinate to him, and as he has done so, because those tribunals had) acted contrary to the Additional Settlement Commissioner's order of 30 October, 1967, (which has not been filed) no exception whatever can be taken to the order of the Settlement Commissioner. Therefore, the High Could not have been justified in its limited constitutional jurisdiction in interfering with the Settlement Commissioner's order.
8. Mr. Shaukat then submitted that the Settlement Commissioner should have given a formal notice to Sufi Muhammad Karim for cancellation of the transfer in his favour. We are not impressed by this argument because we are satisfied that Sufi Muhammad Karim was given full opportunity to be heard. We, therefore, see no merit in the petition for leave filed by Sufi Muhammad Karim.
9. We now turn to the other petition and we have to point out that no one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. However, as Muhammad Fazil's writ petition was dismissed by the same judgment by which Sufi Muhammad Karim's writ petition was dismissed, we have examined the judgment in order to see whether there is any error whatever in the finding of the High Court against Muhammad Fazil. We have not been able to find any error; and on the contrary as the concurrent findings of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner against Muhammad Fazil are supported by evidence, we are satisfied that the High Court would not have been justified in its limited constitutional jurisdiction in interfering with the findings of the Settlement Department on a question which was within their exclusive jurisdiction. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition also.
10. Both the petitions are, therefore, dismissed.