This is a petition under Article 98 of the Constitution by Noor Elahi who has challenged the order of the Settlement Commissioner.
2. The facts of this case are that property No. S-90-R-7 consists of three shops. This property was burnt at the time of partition. Certain persons reconstructed the said property. One of the shops in dispute was allotted to the petitioner on 9th July, 1949 regularising the possession with effect from 24th December, 1947, which he reconstructed in the year 1948. At the time of Settlement Operations, the petitioner filed a form for the transfer of the plot over which the entire shop was constructed, The other persons also submitted their forms. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 5th October, 1960 transferred one of the shops to the petitioner. Muhammad Talib, therefore, filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional Settlement and Rehabili--tation Commissioner on 28th November, 1962 on the ground that it was barred by time for more than 7 months and the learned Additional Settle--ment Commissioner observed that no reasonable cause for this long inordinate delay was shown to him. Thereafter, revision petition was filed by the respondent on 25th June, 1963, which was accepted by Khan Saeed-ud-Din Khan, Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, on 6th September, 1963. He remanded the case to the Deputy Settlement commissioner for fresh decision as to whether the application of Muhammad Talib dated 30th November, 1959 was a genuine document and whether the respondent was entitled to the transfer of the shop. Hence this writ petition.
3. This writ petition was admitted on the ground that the appeal filed by the respondent was barred by more than 7 months and was dismissed by the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 6th September, 1963, was not justified in law in accepting the revision without adverting to the question of limitation and expressly condoning the delay in favour of the respondent. Reliance was placed on Azmat Ali v.
Chief Settlement Commissioner (PLD 1964 SC 260).
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent. He is unable to show any other authority of the Supreme Court wherein a finding has been given against the view expressed by it in Azmat Ali's case. So long as the view expressed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court is not reversed, it is a law declared and binding to such circumstances, therefore, there can be no other option for me but to quash the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner as his order suffers from the lacuna that he did not say anything about the condonation of delay when be accepted the revision petition and remanded the case.
5. For the reasons given above, the petition is. Accepted and the order of the Settlement Commissioner is quashed, but I make no order as to costs.