This writ petition relates to the dispute about the transfer of Shop No. 226 Block No. 3, Grain Market, Gojra. According to the petitioners this shop was allotted to respondent No. 4 but he parted with its possession in 1954 in favour of the petitioners who have thereafter been in undisputed possession of the same. The petitioners filed an N. C. S. Form for the transfer of the shop. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Gojra passed an order of transfer in their favour on 7-7-1960 (Annex. `A'). After the order of transfer, the petitioners secured a permanent transfer deed from the Settlement Department. After more man four years of this transfer respondent No. 4 filed an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner in August, 1964. His contention was that he had been in possession of the property in dispute while the petitioners were never in possession of the same and as such were not entitled to its transfer. The Additional Settlement Commissioner dismissed the appeal as barred by time as also for the reason that respondent No. 4 had not submitted any form and consequently had no locus standi for the transfer of the property. In view of the contentions raised by respondent No. 4 the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner made an observation that the property should have been put to auction because neither of the parties under the circum--stances had any locus standi for the transfer of the same. He found himself unable to interfere in this case as a permanent transfer deed had been issued to the petitioners.
He, however, remarked that if respondent No. 4 still felt aggrieved he should move the Chief Settlement Commissioner for the cancellation of the permanent transfer deed on any ground which he considered suitable for such cancellation (Annex `B').
2. Respondent No. 4 filed a revision petition against this order which was dismissed as infructuous by Sh. Ishfaq Ali, Settlement Commissioner Lyallpur on 22-12-1964 (Annex. `C'). He look note of an allegation of respondent No. 4 that he had submitted some application for staying the proceedings to enable him to have the permanent transfer deed in favour of the petitioners set aside by applying to the Chief Settlement Commis--sioner. The learned Settlement Commissioner, therefore, held that he him--self had no jurisdiction to set aside the P. T. D. Issued in favour of the petitioners.
3. Respondent No. 4 filed an application before the Chief Settlement Commissioner for the cancellation of the permanent transfer deed. This application was dismissed on 13-2-1965 (Annex. `D') by Mr. B. A. Qureshi, Chef Settlement Commissioner. He held that respondent No. 4 had no locus standi to prefer this application as he had not preferred any form for transfer and his appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner was barred by time. He was also of the view that the case could not be reopened under rule 7 of the Permanent Transfer Rules, 1961 which had been deleted by then. However, he directed the Additional Settlement Commissioner to refer the matter to the Settlement Commissioner of the area concerned for cancelling this illegal transfer in suo motu revisional powers under section 20 (3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958.
4. A reference was thereafter made by the Additional Settlement Commissioner in compliance with the above direction of the Chief Settle--ment Commissioner. According to the facts given by the learned counsel for the petitioners an application for restoration of the revision petition dismissed on 22-12-1964 was also submitted by respondent No. 4 and the reference and the application came up for hearing together before the Settlement Commissioner. The Settlement Commissioner acted on the reference made by the Additional Settlement Commissioner and without holding that the permanent transfer deed was secured illegally, improperly, fraudulently or by misrepresentation, he cancelled the permanent transfer deed and remanded the case for a fresh trial and decision to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner who was directed to pass*an, order after giving the parties an opportunity of producing evidence.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that-
(1) the revision petition having been dismissed on 22-12-1964, the power of the Settlement Commissioner under section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 was exhausted and he had no jurisdiction to exercise any other suo mote revisional jurisdiction;
(2) with the deletion of rule 7 the matter could not be reopened under the Permanent Transfer Rules of 1961 particularly when the property had gone out of the compensation pool ; and
(3) assuming that the Settlement Commissioner had any power the order of cancellation of the permanent transfer deed is arbitrary as no ground for cancellation has been given and this amounts to putting the cart before the horse.
The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the powers of the Settlement Commissioner under section 20 had not been exhausted by the rejection of the revision petition on 22-12-1964 as that had been rendered infructuous by the issuance of the P. T. D. He also argued that in a case of fraud or misrepresentation the Settlement Authorities have jurisdiction to make an inquiry. For this purpose he relied upon. Sections 27 and 28 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act in which the power of prosecuting a person who is guilty of fraud or misrepresentation has been provided. He has also relied upon Syed Ahmad Abbas Zaidi and others v. Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi and another (PLD 1968 Lah. 166) and S. Anwar Hussain Sani v. Sarfraz Ahmad and others (PLD 1971 SC 669), in support of this, proposition.
6. In my view the revisional powers of the Settlement Commissioner had been exhausted by him when be dismissed .The revision petition of respondent No. 4 on 2.2-12-1964. The ground on which this was done is not at all material. If it was a case where the Settlement Commissioner had refuse to exercise his jurisdiction vested in him by law the proper course for respondent No. 4 was to file a writ petition. But in that case he would have been confronted with two difficulties. He bad filed an appeal after more than four years of the passing of the order of transfer and having failed to file any form for transfer of the property had no locus standi to challenge the transfer of the same in favour of the petitioner. In view of my finding that the revisional power had been exhausted there can be no doubt that the subsequent exercise of power is not exercise of revisional jurisdiction but an exercise of a review power which was not vested in the Settlement Commissioner at all after the amendment of section 21 by Ordinance XIII of 1962. The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel as well as sections 27 and 28 of the Act do not apply to the facts of the present case. Firstly the Settlement Commissioner never came to a finding that there was any case of misrepresentation or fraud. The basis of arguments is not, therefore, there. Otherwise also these authorities and the sections are absolutely distinguishable and cater to absolutely different circumstances. Section 27 read with section 28 authorises the Settlement Authorities to prosecute an offender. On the basis of these sections it cannot be said that the Settlement: Authorities have any power apart from the power of sections, 19, 20 and 21 to interfere with an order passed by an authority in the hierarchy of the Settlement Department. In the case reported in PLD 1968 Lah. 166 the power of cancellation of a permanent transfer deed was supported on the ground that the revisional power against the order of transfer was vested in the Settlement Commissioner. The Supreme Court case makes a reference to rule 7 but the facts of this case are absolutely distinguishable as no case of fraud or misrepresentation was made out even in the case before their Lordships. Reference was made to rule 7 but it appears that this rule was not deleted by the time the ultimate order of the Settlement Authorities was passed.
7. The upshot of this discussion is that the order of Settlement Commis--sioner Annex. `F' is held to be without lawful authority and is quashed. The writ petition is accepted in these terms with costs payable by respondent No. 4.