1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The facts in this case briefly stated are that an area measuring about 24 marlas out of Khasra No. 51/24 situate at Railway Road, Mailsi, is the bone of contention between the parties. The total area of this Khasra No. Is about 12 kanals 18 marlas and has been transferred to several persons including respondents Nos. 5 and 6 (herein referred to as contesting respondents). The case of petitioner No. 1 was that he has been in possession of the plot in dispute since 1950-51 and has raised a permanent construction thereon. He applied for its transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VI and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, vide his order dated 12-10- 1960 transferred the plot in his favour and subsequently, on 3-4-1967, he was even issued a P. T. D.
2. Later on petitioner No. 1, vide registered sale deed 20-7-1970 sold this plot to his wife and a mutation in this regard was duly sanctioned on 27-9-1970.
3. The case of the respondents on the contrary is that the disputed plot was in their possession and the construction existing thereon belongs to them. The property was allotted to them by an order of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 23-8-1950 and the construction raised by them on it, in pursuance of a plan duly approved by the Town Committee, Mailse, vide a Resolution No. VII, dated 3-9-1950 which has been assigned No. B/1-79-A and is assessed to property tax. They have duly been paying the taxes for which they hold receipts. On the commence--ment of the settlement operation they applied for the transfer of the disputed plot under Settlement Scheme No. VI and it was transferred to them by the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 4- 12-1960. The petitioner being a relation of the contesting respondents was accommodated temporarily as a licensee in the year 1965 but having entered into possession he misused the courtesy by obtaining transfer of the property in his favour by fraudulent means. In this respect it was submitted that most of the documents relied upon by him were ante-dated and forged. They learnt about the fraudulent transfer in favour of the petitioner in the year 1967 and, therefore, submitted a miscellaneous application before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Multan on 12- 8-1967, praying that the documents of transfer in favour of petitioner No. 1 be cancelled and a P. T.
4. O. And a P. T. D. In that behalf issued to the contesting respondents. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, however, dismissed the said application by his order dated 9-5-1968. Aggrieved by the said order, the contesting respondents filed an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, who accepted the same by his order dated 29-9-1971 and remanded the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by order dated 29-9-1971 to give decision afresh on the point inter alia whether the petitioners had submitted an application for the transfer of the plot in dispute in time and as to whether the documents obtained by him were genuine and whether the two respondents had not been transferred the same by a valid order.
5. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner in pursuance of the remand order considered the matter and recorded the following findings, vide order dated 8-5-1972 :- "The petitioner was not able to establish that he had filed an application under relevant scheme within the prescribed time nor he could substantiate his claim for valid possession and raising of permanent structure on the plot in dispute ; the transfer documents with him were not authentic not having been signed by the competent authority and based on no judicial order and that the contesting respondents had been able to establish that the plot in dispute had duly been transferred to them."
6. It may be mentioned that in reaching the above finding the Deputy Settlement Commissioner noted that the P. T. O. Relied upon by the petitioner purported to be issued on 12-10.1960 under the signatures of Mr. Ata Muhammad Bazdar while, in fact, he was not holding the office of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on the said date. A recommendation was also made to the Chief Settlement Commissioner that the case be referred to the Settlement Commissioner for cancellation of the P. T. D. Issued to the petitioners.
7. In the meanwhile, it appears that petitioner No. I had filed a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner against the order of remand passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 29-9-1971. In pursuance of the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner as already noted above had passed the above mentioned order (on 8- 5-1972). The petitioners, therefore, challenged this order too by filing an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner. While this appeal was pending before the Additional Settlement Commis--sioner the revision petition filed against the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 29-9-1971 came up for consideration before the Settlement Commissioner. He, therefore, observed in his order passed on 17-6-1972 :- "A revision against the order of remand is pending before me and an appeal against the reference made by the D. S. C. After remand is pending in the Court of Additional Settlement Commissioner, before going into the merits of the Case I feel that it would be proper that a decision is taken by the Additional Settlement Commissioner in this case on merits and facts of the case. I, therefore, do not pass any order on facts and merits of this case and send the present revision to the Additional'
8. Settlement Commissioner who will decide the matter after hearing the parties taking their evidence, if necessary, on merits and in accordance with law."
9. The Settlement Commissioner also further observed in his order :- "It will not be proper to take a decision here because if a decision is taken by this Court the appeal pending in the Court of Additional Settlement Commissioner will become infructuous and the parties will be left only with the possibility to approach the. High Court. I, therefore, feel that the Additional Settlement Commissioner adjudicates upon it and then this Court is open to the parties to agitate against the second order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner also."
10. The revision petition was disposed of in these terms, vide order dated 17-6-1972.
11. Accordingly; the Additional Settlement Commissioner again took into consideration the appeal against the order dated 8-5-1972 and rejected it upholding the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 8-5-1972 vide his order dated 8-8-1972. The petitioner No. 1 filed a revision petition against the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 8-8-1972, before the learned Settlement Commissioner. The learned Settlement Commissioner after recapitulating the respective stands of both the parties at some length concluded his order as follows :- "From the arguments of the parties and the perusal of the relevant record I see no reason to interfere with the orders of the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 8-8-1972 and the present revision petition is hereby dismissed."
12. This order was passed on 9-12-1972.
13. Aggrieved by the orders of the Settlement authorities whereby the transfer made in favour of respondent No. I had been cancelled the petitioner No. I filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court (W. P. No. 26-R/73) for setting aside the orders adverse to him and for restoring the transfer order dated 12-10-1960 passed in his favour. It appears that during the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner No. I applied to become a party to the proceedings on the ground. That she had been transferred the property in dispute under a Registered Deed and she was accordingly impleaded as petitioner No. 2 to the proceedings. It may here be mentioned that petitioner No. 2 is the wife of petitioner No. 1 and she continued to be represented before the High Court by the counsel of respondent No. 1.
14. The learned Judge in the High Court in an elaborate and carefully considered order has, wherein the history of the case alongwith the contentions of both the parties have been fully considered, come to the conclusion that the petitioners had no case. He observed that the Settlement authorities had recorded a clear finding of fact that the petitioner had obtained forged transfer documents in his favour, he did not apply for the transfer of the disputed plot in time and that he was not in possession of it on the crucial date and therefore he was not entitled to its transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VI. These findings of fact, he observed, could not be questioned in the constitutional jurisdiction and in this connection he relied on this Court's judgment reported in PLD- 1974 SC 139. He further observed that the petitioners had not approached this Court with clear hands and this aspect could not be over-looked. In this connection, he observed that the counsel could not satisfy him as to how the P. T. O. Signed by a Deputy Settlement Commissioner who was not holding the charge of the area, which was issued in favour of the petitioner, could be relied upon by him. He also observed that this is not a case where the petitioner can successfully plead finality of the P. T. D. If it is once accepted that the plot in dispute was transferred to the contesting respondents by an order dated 4-12-1960 the same was not available to be transferred to the petitioners and a P. T. J. Issued in their favour. Moreover, the P. T. D. Issued in favour of the petitioners had no legal sanctity as it was issued on the basis of a forged P. T. O. In this connection reliance was placed in Khuda Bux v. Khushi Muhammad and others (PLD 1976 SC 208), and Mst.
15. Inayat Bibi and others v. Umar Din and others (PLD 1978 SCMR 163). The writ petition was accordingly dismissed by his order passed on 30-6-1979. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
16. Mr. A. R. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioners in the first instance submitted before us that the order dated 4-12-1960 passed in favour of petitioner No. 1 had become a final order as no appeal or revision had been filed against it and the petitioners had even been issued a P. T. D. On 3-4-1967.
17. The transfer was sought to be set aside on the basis of a miscellaneous application filed on 12-8- 1967. This application was incompetent and all the subsequent proceedings that were taken in pursuance of the orders passed on this application were similarly incompetent and the resulting orders wherein the transfer in favour of petitioner No. 1 was set aside was wholly ineffective.
18. In the second place he argued that petitioner No. 1 had sold the property on 29-7-1970 in favour of his wife, Mst. Shahnaz Akhtar, petitioner No. 2, by a registered deed and a mutation was also entered. The respondents bad not impleaded Mst. Shahnaz Akhtar as a party before the Settlement authorities and the orders passed cancelling the transfer was ineffective as against her. In this connection reliance has been placed in a case Muhammad Siddiq v. Settlement Commissioner, etc. (PLD 1965 SC 123).
19. It was thirdly contended that the earlier order of the Settlement Commis--sioner dated 17-6 1972 was also not a legal disposal of the revision petition as he had merely sent the case for disposal to the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner and not decided the revision himself.
20. It was lastly argued that the learned Settlement Commissioner had passed no speaking order. The first paragraph of the order contained merely the version of the case of the contesting respondents and by the last paragraph the Settlement Commissioner -had disposed of the revision petition giving no cogent, convincing and legal reasons for not interfering with the orders of the subordinate authorities.
21. Mr. Iftikhar Dar also appeared on behalf of the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 as caveator and was heard.
22. We have given this matter our anxious consideration and feel that the order of the High Court refusing to interfere with the order of the Settlement authorities does not require any interference.
23. So far as the first contention is concerned that the order passed against the petitioners has been in pursuance of the proceedings which were incompetent suffice it to say that according to the contesting respondents they had been transferred this property on 4-12-1960 and had accommodated petitioner No. I, who was a relation, in 1965 but two years later they discovered that this relative had by submitting an ante--dated form and by forging and fabricating certain documents obtained the transfer of the property in his favour. They, therefore, moved the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for a clarification of the position and the order passed by him in this respect being an order under the Act could have been challenged by a further appeal before the higher Settlement authorities. We do not, therefore, agree that the proceedings initiated by the contesting respondents were incompetent in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.
24. As for the second contention we find that petitioner No. 2 is the wife of petitioner No. 1 and after the property was sold in her favour on 29-7-1970 she took no step to become a party before the Settlement authorities where the matter was pending. Even in the revision filed by petitioner No. 1 she did not take steps to become a co-petitioner, with him and also did not join him in filing the writ petition and subsequently it was by an application under Order I, rule 10, C. P. C. That she decided to join him as a co-petitioner. Thereafter also she continues to be represented by the same counsel who was ,representing her husband as her case was identical with that of her husband. In any case before the High Court she was duly represented and has been heard and thereafter it has been found that her principal was not a valid transferee of the property. In these circumstances, the submission that the orders setting aside the transfer in favour of her husband will not affect her rights has no merit.
25. As for the last submission that the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 17-6-1972 was not a legal disposal of the revision petition, we do not think that this is correct. The portions of the said order reproduced above clearly show that he was remanding the case for decision alongwith the appeal filed against the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 8-5-1972 which had been passed in the meantime. In any case, the petitioners did not challenge this order by any further proceedings and apparently accepted it. The order having been acted upon, it is too late now to impugn it.
26. So far as the last contention is concerned that the learned Settlement Commissioner has not given any independent reasons for dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioners and has merely confined himself to recapitulating the history of the case. And in the last paragraph of his order which runs only into a few lines just dismissed it. There is some justification in this criticism. We would have expected the Settlement Commissioner to have passed more detailed order in the matter but we cannot hold merely on account of its brevity that the order has been passed without lawful authority and is of no legal effect. A reading of the said order does disclose that the Settlement Commissioner was fully aware of the case of both the parties and he has agreed with the finding of the Deputy Settlement Commis--sioner and the Additional Settlement Commissioner that the petitioner were guilty of forgeries and fabrications. Hence his revision petition was liable to be dismissed.
27. Be that as it may, the learned Judge in the High Court observed that a petitioner No. 1 bad not come to the Court with clean hands his writ petition is liable to be dismissed on that short ground.
28. This Court has recently reiterated the principle that in writ proceedings if the writ petitioner does not approach the High Court with clean hands his petition is liable to be dismissed on this short ground. (C. Ps. S. L. Nos. 80-R to 83-R of 1974-Rehman Shah, Muhammad Hashim, Haji Bashir Ahmad and Masil v. The Presiding Officer, Summary Military Court No. 1, Peshawar etc., decided on 23-6-1979).
29. The upshot is that this petition must fail and is dismissed hereby.