' The petitioners are successorsin-interest of Zaka-ud-Din who was a claimant displaced person.
On 30th May, 1960 he is stated to have filed a form CH No, VHR./2803 for the transfer of house No, 544, Ward No, 4, Kahror Pakka, District Multan, which was being referred to as No, 359 in the Rehabilitation record' and the parties do not contest this position It is alleged that the house in .
Question was transferred to Zaka-ud-Din vide order dated 6th October, 1960 by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Zaka-ud-Din is also said to have paid the entire transfer price through his compensation. Book.
2. Another development which took place with regard to this property is that it had been included in the earmarking pool and transferred to Mst. Ijazi Begum, the predecessor in interest of respondents Nos. 2 to 4 on 29th June, 1960. Mst. Ijazi Begum is said to have paid the entire transfer price and a P. T. D. Was issued to her on the 23rd July, 1962. It is further alleged that a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compens- ation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, was also served on Zaka-ud-Din by Mst. Ijazi Begum but no reply came forth.
3. Zaka-ud-Din died in the year 1968. His brother submitted an application dated 28th August, 1972, to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner asking the issuance of a P.T.D. It is on record that the file of the property in question had been misplaced and it was suggested on the same day that it may be reconstructed. The office also reported that the property in question had been transferred to two persons, i.e, Zaka-ud-Din and Mst. Ijazi Begum. The above said application was later placed before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner who by his order dated 30th November, 1972 rejected the same on the ground that brother of Zaka-udDin had no -locus stand!.,
4. Petitioner No, 1 also filed a similar application which too was rejected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on the 22nd December, 1972 on the ground that no appeal had been filed against the order dated 30th November, 1972. The present petitioners then filed an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner wherein they stated that property in question had been transferred to Zaka-ud-Din and payment was also made from his compensation book in accordance with the appendix issued. It was further alleged that they had no knowledge about the transfer of his property to Mst. Ijazi Begum which seems to be forged and fraudulent in view of the fact that the original order of transfer was never set aside. It was further stated that the original order placing the property in the earmarking pool did not exist and, therefore, the order rejecting their request for the issue of the P.T.D. Was illegal. A request for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was also made. Meanwhile, there was a change in law and this appeal was converted into a revision and dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 5th November, 1973.
' The petitioners now challenge the order of the Settlement Authorities through the present writ petition.
5. The main contention of the learaned counsel for the petitioners is that Zaka-ud-Din had submitted a Form CH on 30th May, 1960 and even if the property had been placed in the earmarking pool subsequently the transfer to Mst. Ljzi Begum was unlawful as the form of Zaka-ud- Din had not been disposed of by then. It is on this basis that the order of transfer by way of earmarking in favour of Mst. Ijazi Begum is claimed to be void and nullity and the entire super- structure based thereon ineffective and inoperative. It is to be seen that the petitioners have neither placed on record the CH Form nor the original receipt. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, produced the original receipt of the form at the time of hearing on 23rd October, 1974, a photostat copy of which has been placed on record. The appendix was claimed to have been issued but neither the P.T.O. Nor the compensation book or any other certificate about the payment of the price has been produced. It becomes, therefore, quite difficult to decide if Zaka-ud-Din did submit a form and whether the same was disposed of or not before the property was placed in the earmarking pool. Similarly no documents have been placed on record by the respondents as to when the drawing of lots took place and when thi property was transferred to Mst. Ijazi Begum. In the circumstances it is not possible for the Court to go into the facts of the case and give decision.
6. This case can, however, be decided on other grounds. According to the petitioners, this property had been transferred to Zaka-ud-Din on 6th October, 1960. The respondents claim its transfer in favour of Mst. Ijazi Begum since 29th June, 1960. Obviously the inclusion of the property in the earmarking pool and the drawing of lots took place sometime earlier. A list of all available properties was prepared and published inl the official gazette vide paras. 2 and 3 of the Settlement Scheme No, V. It was also given due publicity in the press and by publication of lists for public use as was the usual practice and a requirement of Schem No, V. It was, therefore, for Zaka-ud-Din to have objected to the incluslan of the property in the earmarking pool and to have obtained a stay orde against its disposal. Nothing seems to have been done in this- regard. Again the respondents claim to have served a notice-dated llth April, 1961 under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. It has been held by the Settlement Commissoner in the impugned order that there is no rebuttal to this fact by the petitioners. In any case Zaka-ud- Din, till the year 1968 and the present petitioners- till the year 1972, did not take any steps in the matter in spite of the fact that a P.T.D. Is claimed to have been issued in favour of Mst. Ijazi Begum since 23rd July, 1962. No reasonable explanation for this inordinat delay is to be found on the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to avoid this objection by saying that the original order of transfer in favour of Mst. Ijazi Begum being void no question of limitation aros to reopen the case in their favour. Reliance has been placed on the case reported as PLD 1969 Lah.
1039. He further stated that the earmarking scheme had been scrapped on the 10/11th June, 1960 by the Contra Government and that the transfer order in favour of Mst. Ijazi Begum being of a subsequent date the same was void. I am afraid, the order of transfer dated 29th June, 1960 became final as there was no appeal or revision against that. As the file had been misplaced there is no proof if any form was submitted by the petitioners and whether the same was rejected or it remained undecided. The presumption is that the order of transfer in favour of Mst. Ijazi Begum being earlier in time was passed validly and legally. Further such an inordinate delay of about 12 years may amount to waiver or acquiescence. The allegat ion that Mst. Ijazi Begum had also served a notice under section 30 on Zaka-ud-Din makes' the position still worse for the petitioners.
7. In the circumstances, I see no force in this petition and the same is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.