' The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to be transferee of house bearing No, 11-B, 172, 153 to 155 situated in Moro Town District Nawabshah as per order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner Nawabshah passed on 30th September,.
1960.
2. On the ground floor of the said house there are two Kotries (small rooms) one in possession of Allah Rakha and the other is with Muhammad AyubJllyas. According to the petitioner these two persons since the transfer of the property as above-mentioned, have been paying rent, to him.
' On the other hand the respondent No, 2 claims to be the transferee of property bearing No, 11-B.
172-A. II-B. 172-B. II-B. 175, II-B/174 also situated at Moro. This respondent from time to time got his transfer documents clarified and ultimately on his application and site inspection these two Kotries in possession of Allah Rakha and Muhammad Ilyas were also shown to have been transferred in his favour and site plan was approved by the then Deputy Settlement Commissioner showing such transfer in favour of the respondent No,
2. A revised Appendix was issued in his favour on 18th June, 1960 according to which the respondent No, 2 was separately charged for the said two Kotries at the rate of Rs, 2 each.
3. On the basis of the transfer as above-mentioned claimed by the respondent No, 2, he served notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (C and R) Act, 1958 upon occupants Allah Rakha and Muhammad llyas, and on their failure to pay rent, ejectment cases were filed against them in the Court of the Rent Controller. The said occupants challenged the relationship of landlord and tenant, whereupon the Rent Controller framed preliminary issue which was decided in favour of the respondent No, 2 and it was held that the relationship of landlord/ tenant existed between the parties. Accordingly order was passed against the two occupants to deposit rent under section 13
(6) of the Ordinance, of 1959.
' The said occupants however did not deposit any rent as directed and accordingly their defence was struck off. The said orders were challenged before the First Appellate Court who having found that admittedly the occupants were paying rent to one Azizur Rehman (the present petitioner) who also possessed a P. T.
0. For the property in dispute held that the said occupants bad not violated the provisions of section 30 (3) of D. P. Act, 1958 which alone could give jurisdiction to the Rent Controller to entertain an ejectment case.
3. Against the said orders, appeals were filed before the High Court which were registered as II Appeal No, 262/73 and H Appeal No, 263/ 73. The appeals however were dismissed with the following observations :- "Mr. Abdul Hakim Khan the learned counsel for the appellant concedes that there were conflicting documents as regards the real transferee of the property in question and it is also necessary to identify the properties bearing Nos. II-B/172/A, II-B 172/B and II-B/172. In this view of the matter the order made by the First Appellate Court is unassailable and these appeals are therefore dismissed but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs."
4. Making the above order as the basis, an application before th Deputy Settlement Commissioner Nawabshah was filed on 22nd May. 1979 by the the respondent No, 2 for demarcation of II-B/172. As and II-B/172-B, and II-B/172, situated in Moro. At the hearing on behalf of the petitioner objection was taken to the jurisdiction of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on the plea that he could not entertain the said application after the repeal of D. P. Act, 1958. The learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner however by order dated 25th March, 1980 overruled the said objection and proceeded to decide the matter on the basis that the application had been moved in the light of the observation of the High Court made in IInd Appeals Nos. 262 and 263/73, referred to above and that the same was binding upon him.
' The Deputy Settlement Commissioner then disposed of the matter by the impugned order holding, amongst others, that the two `Kotris' had been specifically applied for by Sakawatullah_ Khan (respondent No, 2) by showing their D. S. Numbers in his C. H. Form, that he had also applied for their unification with his house on the First Floor and again got the same demarcated in the year 1962 when he was separately charged for the same and that P. T. D. Has been issued to him.
5. The present petition has been filed challenging the above order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and Mr. Maroof Ali Khan had restricted his arguments to the limited question as to the jurisdiction of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to entertain the application dated 22nd May, 1979, after repeal of the D. P. Act, 1958 by Evacuee Property Displaced Persons Laws Repeal Ordinance (Ordinance No, 15/1974), followed by Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws Repeal Act No, 14 of 1975 which came into force with effect from Ist July, 1974 and repealed amongst others Displaced Persons (C and R) Act, 1958.
' Relevant for the purposes of this case is section 2, subsection (2) of the above-mentioned Act No, 14 of 1975 which is reproduced herein-below :- "Upon the repeal of the aforesaid Acts and Regulations, all proceedings, which immediately before such repeal, may be pending before the authorities appointed thereunder shall stand transferred for final disposal to such officers as may be notified by the Provincial Government in the official Gazette and all cases decided by the Supreme Court or a High Court after such repeal which "which would have been remanded to any such authority in the absence of such repeal shall be remanded to the Officers notified as aforesaid."
6. The learned counsel for the respondent No, 2, Mr. M. G. Dastagir, did not dispute the fact that no application was pending before the First July, 1974 for the purposes of demarcation before any of the Settlement Authorities under the D. P. Act, 1958.
' Mr. Maroof Ali Khan in support his contention as above submitted that unless any proceeding was pending immediately before the repeal of D. P. Act, 1958 or unless any proceeding was pending before 1st July, 1974, the Settlement Authorities would have no jurisdiction to entertain any application under the said Act. A number of cases were cited but it would suffice to refer here to the case of Muhammad Younus Khan. The facts' of the said case were that one Ahmad on 13th June, 1975 made an application for cancellation of transfer of certain land to the respondent in that case and for transfer the same to him. This case was dealt with by Additional Settlement Commissioner who however dismissed the same on the ground that on account of promulgation of Act No, 14 of 1975, D. P. Act, 1958 stood repealed and the property thus could not be transferred to him. This order was challenged by a revision petition, which was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner, inter alia, on the ground that the Additional Settlement Commissioner had no power to deal with any fresh cases after 1st July, 1974.
' Ahmed then filed writ petition which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court who agreed with the view of the Additional Settlement Commissioner Against the order of dismissal passed by the High Court as above-mentioned, petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Honourable Supreme Court, which was rejected with the observations as follows "We have heard Mr. A. H. Najafi on behalf of the petitioner but he was not able to show that proceedings before the Settlement Authority regarding transfer of the disputed land were pending before the targat date as mentioned in the Ordinance, 1974 1. e. 1st July, 1974. Consequently, we are clear that the order of the Settlement Commissioner holding that the revision petition of Ahmad was nit maintainable is unexceptionable and the High Court rightly refused to interfere with the said order."
7. Mr. Maroof Ali Khan submitted that the observation of the Honourable High Court made in the two IInd on 23rd April, 1979 could not be, construed as to confer jurisdiction upon the Settlement Authorities to entertain fresh applications after 1st July, 1974 under the D. P. Act which stood repealed by Act No, 14 of 1975. In fact the concluding part of the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in second appeals, reproduced above does not in any manner amount to a direction to the Settlement Authorities to assume jurisdiction which they otherwise did not possess.
8. Mr. M. G. Dastagir learned counsel for the respondent No, 2 was unable to meet the legal objections raised as above particularly in view of the authoritative judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Younus referred to above. '
9. The upshot of the above discussion is that the order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 25th March, 1980 is quashed as having been passed without lawful authority and that the same is declared to be of no legal effect.
' In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. 1981 SCM R 899