M. S. H. QURESHI, J. :The dispute concerns a plot of land measuring 1 marla, adjacent to House No. 686/141, Ward No. 4, Shorkot City. The house had been transferred to Faqir Muhammad respondent and a P. T. D. Had been issued in his favour on 10.2-1970. On coming to know that the plot was being put to auction, Faqir Muhammad applied for treating the same to be the courtyard and thus part of the house transferred to him. By way of caution, he also filed form B. S. Under Scheme VII.
Muhammad Latif Petitioner also sought transfer of the plot in his favour claiming to be in possession of the same. Both of them, however, failed before the Settlement Commissioner, who dismissed their separate revision petitions by order-dated 18-7-1973. Faqir Muhammad challenged the order of the Settlement Commissioner through Writ Petition No. 113/R of 1974 which was accepted on 13-2-1975 upon the view that the whole property Bearing No. 686/141 including the plot had already been transferred to him on a permanent basis. About a month later, i.e., on 18-3-1975, the petitioner, who had not agitated the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 18-7-1973, purchased the plot from the Department and also obtained a P. T. D. In. Respect of the same on 7- 4-1975. Anticipating the trouble, he instituted Writ Petition No. 631/R of 1975 praying that the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 18-7-1973 be set aside and his claim to the plot be declared to be valid and the P. T. D. Issued in his favour to be absolute and legal. The High Court, however, dismissed the petition in l1mine for the reason that in view of the earlier judgment in Faqir Muhammad's Writ Petition No. 113/R of 1974, the Department could not have entered into a bargain with the petitioner about the plot. The petitioner has sought leave to appeal from the order of the High Court.
2. Learned counsel contended that the plot was a property altogether differ--ent from House No. 686/141, that its owner was Mukand Lal evacuee whereas the owner of the said house was Ram Saran Dass evacuee and that only the house, and not the plot, had been transferred in favour of Faqir Muhammad. When his attention was drawn to the judgment in Faqir Muhammad's writ petition, learned counsel submitted that petitioner Muhammad Latif, not having been made a party to that petition, was not bound by the judgment passed therein. We are unable to agree. If the petitioner was not bound, the Department certainly was, as they had been party to that writ petition. The Department, therefore, could not enter into a transaction in respect of the plot when the same had, by the order of the High Court, been declared to be a part of the house of Faqir Muhammad. If the petitioner found fault with that order of the High Court, he could have taken remedy against the same under the law. Instead, he entered into the transaction shortly after passing of that order. With the order o-- the A High Court holding the field, the plot, which had been declared to be the property of Faqir Muhammad, could not be transferred in favour of the petition or anyone else. The High Court was also right in observing that the petitioner, who had been a party to the order dated 18-7-1973 before the Settlement Commissioner, had not agitated against the same for a good long time. The decision of the High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition, therefore, calls for no interference. The petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.