1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMED, J.---This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the former High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, in Writ Petition No. 2304/R of 1962, dated the 2nd March 1965. By this judgment, the High Court held that the appellant was not a displaced person and dismissed his writ petition.
2. The dispute between the parties is in respect of house No. 12/G, Model Town, Lahore. It was allotted to the appellant on the 11th September 1949. The appellant applied for its transfer on N. C. H. Form on the allegation that he was a non---claimant displaced person and the Deputy settlement Commis--sioner, Lahore, on the 15th June 1960, transferred it to him on evaluation basis on condition that he would associate with him claimant displaced persons. The appellant paid the assessed price of Rs. 44,381 by associating claimants with him and also paid the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 4,283.11. It appears that respondent No. 2 informed the Director of Enforcement Staff that the above transfer was illegal as the appellant was a local. Thereupon, Mr. Bashir Ahmad, Settlement Commissioner (Policy), issued a notice on the 16th February 1961, under section 20(3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, calling upon the appellant to show cause why the P. T. O. Issued to him should not be cancelled as he was a local and not a displaced person. The appellant filed a written state--ment denying that he was a local and stated that he was a displaced person as he was appointed under the Delhi Admin1stra--tion to a permanent post at Delhi. The learned Officer, by order dated the 27th February 1961, after going through the material placed before him, held the appellant as a local and cancelled his P. T. O. The appellant challenged this order in revision before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, which was rejected on the 17th May 1962. By the same order, the learned Officer ordered that Bungalow No. 12/G, Model Town shall stand trans--ferred to respondent No. 2, the informant. The appellant then moved the High Court in Writ Petition No. 2304/R of 1962. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the 2nd March 1965. In this connection the High Court observed as under "He was originally a resident of an area which was a part of Pakistan and was posted as Ass1stant Superintendent of Educa--tion at Delhi against a post to which appointment was made initially for five years and his appointment was on probation for one year. It is not his case that he was confirmed on the satisfactory completion of the period of probation. No order of confirmation has been produced by his stay in Delhi which was of temporary character, he cannot be deemed to have been a resident of that place. In Syed Haider Shah v. Mukhtar Hussain Shah PLD 1963 Lah.
548. It has been held by Full Bench that keeping in view the dictionary meaning of the word "residence" and the object and intent of the Legislature, a person in order to qualify himself as a displaced person must have had a permanent residence or such continuous habitation in that part of British India which now forms India with no immediate intention of leaving the same but for the reasons given in the definition of the terms displaced person. There was no difficulty in the case of those who had their residence only in that part of British India which now forms part of Pakistan (as in the case of the petitioner). In their case it would be a question of fact to be decided in the circumstances and light of each case whether the residence of these persons in that part of British India which now forms part of India was of such a character and nature that they would not have abandoned the same but for the civil d1sturbances in that area. The petitioner has not satisfied the Settlement authorities nor are we satisfied that his residence in Delhi was of such a character and nature that he would not have abandoned the same but for the setting up of the two dominions or the civil d1sturbances of the fear of such d1sturbances or the fear of such d1sturbances in that area."
3. The appellant has challenged this judgment in this appeal before us.
4. Special leave was granted in this case to consider the question whether the High Court and the Settlement authorities have considered all the material that was placed before them to come to the conclusion whether the appellant was a displaced person within the meaning of clause (3) of section 2 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958.
5. In support of the appeal, Sh. Nasim Hasan, learned counsel for the appellant, has urged the following points :-
(1) That the Settlement Commissioner (Policy), had no jurisdiction to interfere under section 20(3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act.
(2) That the allotment made by the Rehabilitation authorities was indirectly cancelled by subsequent cancellation of transfer.
(3) That without giving notice to the associates the order of the Settlement authorities is without jurisdiction.
(4) That respondent No. 2 should not have been given the bungalow in dispute in proceedings held against the appellant. She has no locus standi to contest these proceedings.
(5) That the appellant is a displaced person from India.
6. I will take up these points separately.
7. On the first point, the learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the Settlement Commissioner (Policy), had no jurisdiction to give notice or to conduct proceedings against the appellant in which he passed the impugned order, dated the 27th February 1961. According to the learned counsel, he was not one of those Settlement Commissioners who had been conferred jurisdiction by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, to exercise powers under subsections (3) and
(4) of section 20 of the Dis--placed Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The contention of the learned counsel is not well founded. Notification No. 1226-PL-Reh-60, dated the 18th January 1960, at pages 489-490 (sic) in reproduced below :- "In exercise of the powers conferred upon me by subsection (3) and subsection (4) of section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, I, Syed Hashim Raza, Chief Settlement Commissioner, Pakistan, empower the following officers to exercise powers under the aforesaid subsections of the Act, with effect from the date of their appointment in each case :-
(1) All Settlement Commissioners in West Pakistan and Karachi, in their respective jurisdictions with the exception of the Commissioners of Divisions in West Pakistan.
(2) All Additional Settlement Commissioners in West Pakistan and Karachi in their respective jurisdictions with the exception of the Additional Settlement Commissioners in the Headquarters Office, Lahore."
8. This notification clearly says that all the Settlement Commis--sioners in West Pakistan and Karachi in their respective jurisdictions were authorised by the Chief Settlement Commis--sioner to exercise powers under section 20(3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)
9. Act, 1958. Mr. Bashir Ahmad, Settlement Commissioner (Policy), was also a Settlement Commissioner in West Pakistan, and, therefore, he had jurisdiction to issue notice to the appellant under the above provisions of law. This contention is, therefore, repelled.
10. So far as the second point is concerned, it was not raised in the petition for special leave to appeal nor was it raised before the High Court. I would, therefore, decline to entertain this ground in this appeal before this Court.
11. Ground No. 3, namely, that as no notice was given to the associates of the appellant, the order of the Settlement authorities is without jurisdiction was also not raised in the petition for special leave to appeal and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to raise it before us. In any case, the appellant only associated certain persons in the payment of the price of the property in dispute by purchasing their claims as is evident from the P. T. O. Issued in his name alone, and in his writ petition, he alone claimed to be the full owner of the property. Such persons, in m opinion, cannot be called as associated and are not entitled to any notice before a P. T. O. Is cancelled.
12. The fourth point that respondent No. 2 should not have been given the property in dispute in the proceedings held against the appellant and she has no locus standi to contest the proceedings before us has also no force. The manner in which any property out of the compensation pool is transferred was laid down in section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabili-- tation) Act, 1958, which, at the material time, stood as follows :- "Section 10. Powers to transfer property from the compensation pool. Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, the Settlement Commissioner may transfer or dispose of any property out of the compensation pool-
(a) on evaluation basis, or by sale by means of auction or otherwise, in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule ;
(b) in such other manner as may be prescribed".
13. In the present case, the property in dispute was transferred under sub-clause (b) of the above provision of law. The Chief Settle--ment Commissioner issued a press-note dated the 29th September 1960, which is published at page 166 of the old Settlement Manual. In this press-note, it was pointed out that ineligible persons have obtained transfers by mis-representation of facts and by giving false declarations to the Settlement Authorities. Members of the public were invited to extend their co-operation and report such cases to the Enforcement Police so that such irregular applications or transfer orders may be cancelled. As an inducement to the informant, it was decided that if a person gives information about any such case and the information is found to be correct the property will be transferred to the informant, if he is not ineligible to the transfer of that property under the 'Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and the Rules and Schemes made thereunder. It was in pursu--ance of this that respondent No. 2 lodged the information with the Director of Enforcement, Evacuee Property and Claims. In the present case, P.
14. T. O. In favour of respondent No. 2 Mst. Sardar Begum was issued on the 8th May 1961. Thus if it is held that the transfer of the appellant was cancelled on valid grounds, the P. T. O. In favour of respondent No. 2 will be quite valid and no exception can be taken to it. In my opinion, respondent No. 2 has locus stand! To contest these proceedings for two reasons. In the first place, she has been transferred the property in dispute on the 8th May 1961. Secondly, she has been impleaded as a party to the proceedings before us by the appellant. I would, therefore, repel this contention also.
15. The most important question is covered by ground No. 5, namely, whether the appellant is a displaced person or not. In this connection, the case of the appellant is that after doing his M. A., from the Punjab University and Ph. D. From London, he worked for sometime in the Islamia College, Lahore. Thereafter, he took Emergency Commission in the Royal Indian Air Force in the World War II.
16. He was released from that job on the 9th May 1946, and his connection with R. I. A. F. Finally terminated on the 31st May 1946. He was appointed as Ass1stant Superin--tendent, Education, Delhi, Ajmer-Marwar and Central India through the Federal Public Service Commission of India on the 10th May 1946. In that capacity he was also the Secretary of the Higher Secondary Education Board.
17. It is alleged that it was a permanent post, appointment to which was made, for five years in the first instance with a period of probation for one year. The post was not transferable anywhere else in India and held its station of posting at Delhi. . After his appointment in the said post, the appellant took up residence with his family in a house situated at 448/2 Nicholson Road, Delhi, which was requisitioned for him by the Chief Commissioner, Delhi on the 21st October 1946. On the 19th April 1947, the appellant was appointed as a Member of the Delhi University Court for three years by the Chancellor. According to him he continued to reside in Delhi at the above house and paid his insurance premium and electricity bills and continued to do his duties in Delhi throughout July 1947 It is also alleged by him that the appellant was asked by the Superintendent of Education, Delhi by letter dated the 1st July 1947, to make his choice whether he would opt for Pakistan or India and he opted for Pakistan. But this offer was withdrawn by letter dated the 2nd July 1947. On account of the d1sturbances, life became difficult and curfew was imposed in July 1947 and the appellant was provided by the Admin1stration on the 24th July 1947, a Curfew Identity Pass as Ass1stant Superintendent of Education. In short, the case of the appellant is that he remained in Delhi in the employment of the Delhi Admin1stration, Education Department, from 10th May 1946 to 1st August 1947. It is alleged that the appellant was compelled to migrate from Delhi with the worsening of the situation there in August 1947, leaving all his belongings behind. According to him, on account of the setting up of two dominions and d1sturbances, the appel--lant took refuge first in the Royal Pakistan Air Force in Delhi after the 1st August 1947, and joined that force in a junior temporary position as Flying Officer (Salary Rs. 400) in order to save his dependents' lives and then reached Lahore. On arrival Lahore, at his request, house No. 12/G, Model Town, was requisitioned in September 1947, and was regularly allotted to him on the 11th September 1949, by the Rehabilitation Department. It is on these allegations that the appellant claims that he is a displaced person from Delhi. The grievance of the appellant is that all these facts were not taken into consideration by the Settlement Authorities and the High Court and he has been wrongly held to be a local.
18. There is a good deal of case-law on the subject of displaced person. This question was. Considered by a Full Bench of the Lahore High Court in Syed Harder Shah v. Mukhtar Hussain Shah (PLD 1963 Lah. 548). This decision has been approved by this Court in the cases of Amirzada and another v.
19. Mst. Sardar Begum and another (1970 SCMR 361) and Major Syed Walayat Shah v. Muzafar Khan and others (PLD 1971 SC 184). The following principles have been laid down by the Full Bench for the determination of question of displaced person :-
(i) That a person, in order to qualify himself as a displaced person, must have had a permanent residence of such con--tinuous habitation in that part of British-India which now forms India with no immediate intention of leaving the same
(ii) that in the case of persons who have their permanent residences in that part of British-India which now forms part of Pakistan, it would be a question. Of fact to be decided in the circumstances and light of each case whether the residence of these persons in that part of British-India which now forms part of India was of such a character and nature that they would not have abandoned the same but for the civil d1sturbances or the fear of such d1sturbances in that area."
20. In my opinion, the question whether a person is local or displaced person depends on the circumstances and facts of each case. In the present case it is not disputed that the appellant belongs to District Gujranwala which is a part of Pakistan. He was employed as Ass1stant Superintendent of Education, Delhi, Ajmer-Marwar and Central India through the Publice Service Commission on the 10th May 1946. In the first instance his appointment was for five years with a period of probation for one year. It is admitted by the appellant that he was not confirmed in the said post. It cannot, therefore, be said that he was hold--ing a permanent post. I am satisfied that on the evidence produced by the appellant it is proved that he remained in service of the Delhi Admin1stration from 10th May 1946, to 1st August 1947. On the 2nd August 1947, he got employment in the Pakistan Air Force of the Pakistan Wing in Delhi as Flying Officer drawing a salary of Rs. 400 p.m. This clearly shows that he gave up his appointment in the Delhi Admin1stration and obtained a fresh appointment in the Pakistan Wing in Delhi and is was on account of exigency of his service that he was transferred from Delhi to Lahore. I might have held him to be a displaced person if he had not obtained an employment with Pakistan Government. Since he got himself employed in the Pakistan Wing in Delhi on the 2nd August 1947, it cannot be said that he left Delhi on account of the setting up of two dominions or on account of the communal d1sturbances. It may be noted that the appellant himself in the form abadkari stated that he was not a refugee. In .My opinion in these circumstances, the High Court was perfectly justified in holding him to be a local and not a displaced person.
21. On the conclusion that I have reached in the matter, the property in dispute could not be transferred to the appellant on N. C. H. Form. It is quite clear to me that the appellant has obtained the transfer of the property in dispute on misconceived notions and, therefore, the Settlement authorities were perfectly justified in setting aside the transfer in his favour and in transferring it to respondent No. 2.
22. For the reasons given above, there is no force in the appeal which is dismissed with no order as to costs.