The dispute relates to property No. P-153, Block No. 2 Main Bazar, Gojra, District Lyallpur. On the advent of Settlement Operation, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 16th December, 1959 held that the shops in- possession of the petitioner and other locals being ineligible for transfer, be included in the list of open auction. The petitioner was, thus, deprived of the transfer of the shop in his possession, Respondent No. 4 who had filed C. S. Form No. 302 for the shop in his possession was transferred the same by the aforesaid order. Subsequently, on the motion of Muhammad Rafiq and Hidayatullah, the case was taken up on remand by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner who passed an order in that behalf on 17th June, 1960. The respondent No. 4 filed an appeal against this order which was dismissed in default by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 8th September, 1960. The respondent then, filed a revision petition. Ch. Sultan Muhammad Khan, Settlement Commis--sioner accepted the same and passed the following order. One-half of the shop has been given to the petitioner although he is in possession of 3/4th of it and also the entire residential accommodation on the roof of it. In---between the shops temporary wall is said to have been constructed for convenience sake which is only four inches were and the shop was in possession of Fazal Karim who was a local. Fazal Karim had left and that portion is now earmarked for auction. I have been shown a site plan of the shop in question which shows that the petitioner was in possession of 3/4th portion of the shop while 1/4th has been ear marked for auction with a horizontal line of the upper floor. It also appears that there are some similar shops also adjacent to the shop of the petitioner which has two portions but the shop is one. Fazal Haq is shown to be one of the transferees of the shop. I consider that by divesting a small portion of the shop and putting it to auction would mean considerable inconvenience to the petitioner who is a claimant D. P. I am inclined to give him that portion also instead of letting it go to the auction pool. Revision accepted.
"This is vide order dated 2nd April, 1962. In consequence of this the respondent No. 4 was issued a permanent Transfer Deed on 19th June, 1963. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner filed a L. S. Form in the year 1966 but the same was rejected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 13th December, 1967 on the ground that the property in dispute had already been transferred to the respondent No. 4 to whom Permanent Transfer Deed had also been issued and, conse--quently, the property was no more available. This is vide order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 13th December, 1967. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed on the same ground by the learned Additional Settle--ment Commissioner on 7th October, 1968 and so also his revision petition by the learned Settlement Commissioner on 11th December, 1968. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid orders of the Settlement authorities by means of this petition under Article 98 of the last Constitution of 1962.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondent's revision petition had been heard in the first instance by Ch. Nabi Ahmad Settlement Commissioner who dismissed the same on 10th October, 1961, but as the learned Officer expired immediately thereafter, the order, in English as well as in Urdu, was not signed anti the respon--dent in collusion with the staff got the same revision petition put up before Ch. Sultan Muhammad Khan, Settlement Commissioner who, without realising that the revision petition had already been dismissed by his predecessor-in- office, accepted the same. Since the revision petition stood already dismissed by Ch. Nabi Ahmad, Settlement Commissioner, even though the latter had not signed the order, yet that order would be opera--tive in law. Reliance is placed on the Firm of Gokhal Chand Jagnnath v. Firm Nand Ram Dass Arma Ram (AIR 1938 P C 292). It is, therefore, contended that the successor Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction to take up the revision petition afresh. Besides, he had no jurisdiction to review the order at the relevant time.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has con--tended that Ch. Nabi Ahmad, Settlement Commissioner had, in fact, passed no order, as alleged on 10th October, 1961 and that the unsigned copies of the alleged orders produced by the petitioner had been inserted in the record subsequently. It is submitted that these have been added at the end of the relevant file. It is next pointed out that normally an Urdu order appears in continuation of the proceedings on order- sheet and order to English carries the full description of the Court, names of the parties and the order. In the present case, it is contended, the Urdu order produced also carries this, description which shows that in an endeavour to prove that the order had been passed, mistake had come in miswriting which has let the cat out of bag. It is also contended that the original case of the petitioner was that only the English order had not been signed but Urdu order had, in fact, been signed. However when order has changed his stand and even the said Urdu order had not been signed. It is, next, contended that the petitioner did not file any form in the first instance. The property was ordered to be put to auction. By the order of Ch. Sultan Muhammad Khan, Settlement Commissioner dated 2nd April, 1962 the respondent No. 4 was transferred the property. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 was issued Permanent Transfer Deed on 19th June, 1963. The petitioner did not challenge the transfer in favour of the respondent. On the other hand, the petitioner accepted the tenancy of the petitioner and delivered him possession. He also appeared to identify the respondent in the mutation proceedings of the property in favour of the respondent before the Revenue Officer. Subsequently, after three years of issuance of Permanent Transfer Deed in favour of the respondent, the petitioner came forward and filed a L. S. Form. The learned counsel contends that in the circumstances and after the issuance of Permanent Transfer Deed, the Settlement authorities bad become functus officio and the petitioner has no right whatsoever to claim the transfer of the property in dispute from the Settlement authorities.
4. There is no clear proof nor any finding of the settlement authori--ties that Ch. Nabi Ahmad, Settlement Commissioner, had dismissed the respondents revision petition on 10th October, 1961. If that had been and the order of dismissal both in English and Urdu had been on record, the petitioner contends, then, that order would have been brought notice of or taken note of by the successor Settlement Commissioner Ch, Sultan Muhammad Khan, an experience and an upright officer and the latter would have said something while deciding contrarily to what the pre--vious order contained. In these circumstances, it is not possible to hold on the record or in these proceedings that Ch. Nabi Ahmad Settlement Commissioner had dismissed the respondents revision petition in the first instance. Moreover, there is another aspect of the case that the property stands transferred t6 the respondent No. 4 a claimant displaced person since 1963 and he had been issued permanent Transfer Deed on 19th June, 1963. Till three years later, the petitioner, who is a local, did not even file a form. After the issuance of Permanent Transfer Deed in favour of the respondent, the property had gone out of the Compensation Pool and the Settlement authorities had become functus officio in this behalf. Reliance may be placed on Syed Murid Hussain Shah v.
Mufti Muhammad Yousaf Ali and others (1974 SCMR 8). Therefore, the L. S. Form filed by the petitioner three years later could not have been given effect to by the Settlement authorities and the latter had rightly rejected the petitioner's L. S. Form. Even if the orders of the Settlement authorities were to be erroneous, which is not accepted, then too this Court cannot interfere in the same in the circumstances of the case when the property stands transferred to a claimant displaced person since more than 12 years past for determining the form of the petitioner who is a local and was in eligible for transfer to start with especially when at the time he was deprived of the transfer in 1969, if the property had been auctioned as ordered, he would have had no right to ask for the same seven years later in 1966. In these circumstances, there is no escape from the conclusion that the petitioner has no right to question the transfer in favour of the respondent No. 4.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no force in this petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed but, in the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs.