' This judgment will dispose of W. P. No, 20/R-83 filed by Iftikhar-ud-Din, petitioner, and W. P. 25/R-83 filed by Qurban Ali Shakoori and others, petitioners, calling in question the notice of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, addressed to Pir Anwar-ud-Din, dated 5-8-1968, the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, dated 9-9-1968, the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, dated 22-10-1968 cancelling the P, T. D. Of Pir Anwar-ud-Din, the notice of Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, dated 25.10-1968 issued to Pir Anwar- ud-Din, the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, dated 13-1-1969, the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi dated 25-3-1979 transferring the northern half portion of the property to Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Hussain, respondents, in accordance with the portions in their respective possession and the southern half portion of the property was to be put to auction and the Transfer Orders Nos. 28068 and 28069 both dated 5-2- 1983 issued by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, transferring half of the northern half portion of the property to Muhammad Ramzan, respondent, and the other half to Muhammad Hussain, respondent, and for a declaration that the said orders, notices and the Transfer Orders be declared to be unlawful, void ab initio, mala fide, nullity, without jurisdiction, without lawful authority and as having no legal effect.
2. Since the case of both sets of parties who have filed the two writ petitions, is reflected in both the petitions, for the purposes of this judgment, I will refer to the documents filed in W. P. 20-R/83 when dealing with the case of both the parties.
3. The brief facts of this case are that evacuee property bearing No, U/84 situated in Raja Bazar, Rawalpindi, was transferred by the Settlement Authority, Rawalpindi, in the name of one Pir Anwar- ud-Din son of Mehr Akbar Ali resident of Rawalpindi against bis C S Form No, 83 dated 10-11-1959 (Annexure 'Al. The evaluation price of the said shop according to Appendix 'X' (Annexure 'B') issued to Pir Anwar-ud-Din on 20-6-1960 was fixed at Rs, 28,800. On payment of the entire price through three compensation books, P. T.
0. No, 441198 dated 7-11-1960 (Annexure 'C') regarding the property was issued in favour of Pir Anwar-ud-Din by the Settlement Authorities. After verification and adjustment of the compensation books and the payment of the public dues and the settlement fees, P. T. D. No, 97 dated 6-10-1961 (Annexure 'D') regarding the property was issued in favour of Pir Anwar-ud-Din.
4. The aforesaid Pir Anwar-ud-Din, as a lawful and valid holder of P. T. D. Divided the property i,e, No, U/84 Raja Bazar, Rawalpindi, into two equal portions and vide sale-deed dated 22-1-1962 registered on 23-1-1962 (Annexure `E') sold the northern half portion of the property to Iftikhar- udDin, petitioner in W. P. No, 20/R of 1983, and the southern half portion of the property to two brothers namely, Qurban Ali and Farman Ali, petitioners in W. P. No, 25/R of 1983, in equal shares for a total consideration of Rs, 52,000. It appears that both northern and southern half portions of the property consisted of two further equal portions, each with a separate door opening towards Raja Bazar. Thus, both the equal portions which fell in the northern half portion of the property which was already in possession of Iftakhar-ud-Din, petitioner in W. P. 20/R of 1983, as a business partner of Pir Anwar-ud-Din, came to be occupied by him as a lawful vendee and both the equal portions which fell in the southern half portion of the property which had separate doors opening towards Raja Bazar, each came to be separately occupied by Qurban Ail and Farman Ali, petitioners in W. P.
25/R-83, as lawful vendees. The northern half portion of property No, U/84 purchased by Iftikhar- ud-Din, petitioner, is shown in red colour while the southern half portion purchased by Qurban Ali and Farman Ali, petitioners, is shown in blue colour in the site plan (Annexure
5. After having purchased the northern half portion of property No, U/84 of Pir Anwar-ud-Din, Iftikhar-ud-Din, petitioner, carried on his independent business therein, He secured a loan of Rs, 20,000 from the National Bank of Pakistan, Rawalpindi, by mortgaging the said portion of the shop, vide registered mortgage deed dated 10-5-1965, and after paying the loan, had the said shop redeemed vide registered deed of re-conveyance dated 19-7-1978 (Annexure '0').
6. Similarly, the southern half portion of property No, U/84 purchased from Pir Anwar-ud-Din came to be used by Qurban Ali petitioner No. 1 and Farman Ali, now represented by his legal heirs, namely, petitioners Nos. 2 to 11.
7. In 1966 Iftikhar-ud-Din, petitioner, rented out portion marked 'A' in the plan Annexure 'F' of his northern half portion of the property to Muhammad Ramzan, respondent No, 5, and the portion marked 'B' of the same northern half portion to Muhammad Hussain, respondent No, 7
8. On 14-5-1980 Iftikhar-ud-Din, petitioner, instituted two separate ejectment petitions (Annexures 'I' & `J') in the Court of the Rent Controller, Rawalpindi, against Muhammad Ramzan, respondent No, 5, and his associate, Altaf Hussain, respondent No, 6, and Muhammad Hussain, respondent No, 7, respectively for their eviction from the portions marked 'A' and 'B' in the plan (Annexure 'F'). Both the petitions were filed on the ground that Iftikhar-ud-Din, petitioner, required both the shops for his personal use for setting up the business of tailoring to be run by his son Wasim Iftikhar, who had returned from England after receiving training in tailoring and cutting. On 25-7-1981 Muhammad Ramzan and his associate Altaf Hussain and Muhammad Hussain, respondents Nos. 5 to 7, filed their respective written statements (Annexures 'K' & 'L') to the ejectment petitions. After the issues, the said respondents Nos. 5 & 7 appeared as their own witnesses and gave evidence (Annexures 'M' & In their pleadings as well as in their evidence respondents Nos. 5 and 7, did not contest the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between them and Iftikhar-ud-Din, petitioner, but asserted that the premises were not bona fide required by Iftikhar-ud-Din for his personal need.
The learned Rent Controller, by his order dated 10-1.1983, accepted the petition against Muhammad Hussain, respondent No, 7 (Annexure '0'). The ejectment petition against Muhammad Ramzan and Altaf Hussain, respondents Nos. 5 and 6, was, however, dismissed on 24-1-1983 (Annexure
9. On 10-2-1983 Iftikhar-ud-Din, petitioner, filed an appeal (Annexure `Q') against the order of the Rent Controller dated 24-1-1983. Similarly, on 13-3-1983 Muhammad Hussain, respondent No, 7, filed an appeal (Annexure `S') against the order of the Rent Controller dated 10-1-1983.
10. On 12-3-1983 Muhammad Ramzan, respondent No, 5, filed an application (Annexure `U') before the Additional District Judge, Rawalphidi, for the first time disclosing that the shop in his possession marked 'B' in the plan (Annexure 'F') had been transferred to him on his form under Settlement Scheme No, VIII by the Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, vide his order dated 25-3-1979 and Transfer Order No, 28068 dated 5-2-1983 had also been issued in his favour and that Iftikhar-ud- Din petitioner's appeal was, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
11. A similar disclosure was also made for the first time by Muhammad Hussain, respondent No, 7, in his grounds of appeal filed on 13-3-1983 that the shop in his possession, portion marked 'B' in the plan (Annexure 'F') had been permanently transferred to him vide Transfer Order No, 28069 dated 5-2-1983 and that his appeal was, therefore, liable to be accepted. He also disclosed other facts leading up to the cancellation of the PTD issued to Pir Anwar-ud-Din regarding property No, U/84 and the final Transfer Order that was made in his favour.
12. When the above disclosures were made by the respondents in their applications/pleadings Iftikhar-ud-Din, petitioner, was residing in Dubai, on account of his employment there. He, therefore, asked his son and his attorney, Wasim Akhtar, to immediately inspect the records etc. And to take necessary action in law for the protection of his interest. Accordingly, the records etc. Were inspected, when the following facts came to light, namely, that on 13-7-1968, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, had issued a notice (Annexure 'W') to Pir Anwar-ud-Din, the original P. T.
D. Holder, demanding Rs, 9,460 towards price of the property No, U/84 transferred to him, on the ground that one of the compensation books deposited by him had been found to the bogus. The notice also stated that in case Pir Anwar-ud-Din failed to deposit the amount, his P. T.
0. Would be cancelled. The record showed that on 12-8-1968 Pir Anwar-ud-Din filed an appeal (Annexure 'Y') before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, challenging the notice, which was dismissed on 9-9-1968 (Annexure 'Z') on the ground that issue of notice was justified.
The file also showed that on 8-10-1968, a clerk had made a report (Annexure 'AA') that Pir Anwar- ud-Din had failed to deposit Rs, 9,460 despite notice and that transfer of the property be cancelled from his name. The noting dated 10-10-1968 of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, under the said note, showed that he had cancelled the Transfer Order. The record further showed that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, by order dated 25-10-1968 (Annexure 'BB% notified to Pir Anwar-ud-Din of the cancellation of transfer of the property from his name. The record showed that Pir Anwar-ud-Din had filed an appeal (Annexure `CC') before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, on 4-11-1968, which was dismissed on 13-1-1969 (Annexure DD') with the observation that in case Iftikhar-ud-Din paid in cash the balance price, the cancellation order would stand set aside, otherwise the property would be deemed as cancelled.
Challan receipts on the file also showed that Pir Anwar-ud-Din had deposited Rs, 2,000 on 11-2-1969 ; and yet another Rs, 2,000 in May, 1969. Forms under Settlement Scheme No, VIII filed by Muhammad Ramzan, respondent No, 5 (Annexure 'GO') and by Muhammad Hussain, respondent No, 7 (Annexure 'HH') on 26-104973 appeared on the file, The file also showed that on 3-12-1978, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, had issued notice (Annexure 'EE') to Pir Anwar-ud- Din to pay balance price of Rs, 5,460 failing which his P T 0 would be cancelled ; and his order dated 25-3-1979 (Annexure 'FF') transferring the northern half portion of Iftikhar-ud-Din, petitioner, to Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Hussain, respondents Nos. 5 and 7, in accordance with the portions in their respective possession and the southern half to be put to auction. On 19-10-1981, notices were issued by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, to Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Hussain, respondents Nos. 5 and 7 (Annexures 'II' and 'ii') and on 27-1-1983 notices were again sent by the same officers to the same respondents (Annexures KK' and 'LL') calling upon them to deposit the price of the shop transferred to them. Affidavits of Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Hussain, respondents Nos. 5 and 7 (Annexures MM' and NN') dated 31-1-1983 on the record showed that they had paid the transfer price and other dues and that no suit, appeal or litigation was pending against the transfer of the said shop. The file finally showed that Transfer Orders Nos. 28068 and 28069 had been issued to Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Hussain.
Respondents Nos. 5 and 7 (Annexures '00' and 'PP') on 5-2-1983.
13. Having inspected various records and securing certified copies, Iftikhar-ud-Din, petitioner, filed W. P. No, 20-R of 1983. Qurban Ali Shakoori and others, petitioners, who also came to learn of the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, dated 25-3-1979, putting their southern half portion of the disputed property to auction, also inspected the necessary files and secured certified copies of orders and filed W. P. No, 25-R/83. Both these writ petitions are now before me for disposal.
14. On behalf of both sets of petitioners various submissions have been made by their learned counsel. First, that the petitioners being bona fide purchasers for value from Pir Anwar-ud-Din, original transferee and the P. T. D. Holder of the property, were necessary parties to all the proceedings which were initiated by the Settlement Authorities from the time that they discovered that one compensation book deposited by Pir Anwar-ud-Din was bogus and claimed Rs, 9,460 and that they were entitled to notice and hearing before the Settlement Authorities before any action was taken against them, which affected their rights. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioners cited Muhammad Siddique v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (I), Amino Begum v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner (2), Din Muhammad v. Boota (3), Jawaid Akhtar v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner (4), Muhammad Latif v. Border Area Committee (5), Karam Elahi etc. v. Waheed-ud- Din etc. (6), Amir Din v. Additional Settlement Commissioner (7), Abdul Hamid v. Khurshid Jehan Begum (8), Noor Ahmad v. Khurshid Jan Begum (9), Fazal Dad v.
Settlement Authority ( 0). Second, that the P. T. D. Of Pir Anwar-ud-Din was cancelled without any finding being recorded that the same was obtained by him by fraud or by practising misrepresentation. As regards one of his compensation books being found dubious, no finding was recorded to show the circumstances as to how, when, by whom and for what reason it was found bogus. In any case, no finding was recorded that Pir Anwar-ud-Din was privy to the preparation of the said bogus compensation book. In the absence of any such finding, the P. T. D. Could not be cancelled. In this connection, the learned counsel cited Tufail Muhammad v. Muhammad Zia Ullah Khan (11) and Anwar Hussain v. Sarfraz Ahmad (12). It was also submitted that according to the existing law as it stands, the P. T. D. Could not have been cancelled even for fraud or misrepresentation. In this connection, the learned counsel has cited Aminuddin v. Settlement Commissioner (13). Third, that even assuming that some small portion of the price was due from Pir Anwar-ud-Din, the original P. T. D. Holder, his transfer could not have been cancelled for non- payment of the same, as he had deposited more than 25% of the price and, under the amended law, the balance could have only been recovered from him or the present petitioners, who were his legal successors, as arrears of land revenue. In this connection, the learned counsel referred to the proviso to para. 2 of Settlement Scheme No, VIII and Nawab Din and another v. Mst. Haseeb-un- Nisa and others (14) {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1965 SC 123 (3) PLD 1972 Lah. 709 (5) PLD 1978 SC 270 (7) NLR 1980 U C 227 (9) NLR 1981 U C 459 (11) PLD 1965 SC 269 (13) 1973 SCMR 624 (2) PLD 1980 Lah. 571
(4) 1980 CLC 1248
(6) PLD 1979 Note 129 at p. 94
(8) NLR 1980 U C 294
(10) NLR 1981 SC I 541
(12) PLD 1971 SC 669
(14) 1980 SCMR 798 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' and Majeeda Begum v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner (1). In any case, learned counsel for both sets of petitioners submitted that they were prepared to deposit the balance of Rs, 5,460, which was presently due to the Settlement Authorities. Fourth, that though Pir Anwar-ud-Din had notice of the proceedings against him for the recovery of price of Rs, 9,460 on and from 13-7-1978 up to May, 1979 when he paid Rs, 4,000 and Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Hussain, respondents Nos.
5 and 7, had notice of the proceedings, when they are alleged to have filed their forms under Settlement Scheme No, VIII till the date they were given their Transfer Orders, both sets of petitioners were neither given any notice of the same by the Settlement Authorities, Pir Anwarud- Din or by respondents Nos. 5 and 7 and after they received knowledge, as stated in paras. 10 and 11, and inspected the file and secured copies of the relevant documents, they immediately filed the present writ petitions and that they are, therefore, not guilty of any laches. In this connection, the learned counsel relied upon Mahmud Alam v. Mehdi Hussain (2).
15. On behalf of both sets of respondents, particularly Muhammad Ramzan, Altaf Hussain and Muhammad Hussain, respondents Nos. 5 to 7, a number of submissions were made by their learned counsel. First, that the petitioners are not aggrieved parties and that only Pir Anwar-ud-Din, the original P. T. D. Holder, or his heirs are aggrieved persons who can file the present proceedings.
Second, that the petitioners are guilty of laches and acquiescence. In this connection, it is submitted that Iftikhar-ud-Din, petitioner, was previously a business partner of Pir Anwar-ud-Din when the latter submitted his C. S. Form in 1959 and since both were friendly with each other, Iftikhar-ud-Din, petitioner, was all along aware of the proceedings which Pir A nwar-ud-Din was taking before the Settlement Authorities with regard to the balance price of Rs, 9,460 and since Iftikhar-ud-Din, petitioner, kept quiet from 1968 onward and has filed the present writ petition in 1983, he must be held guilty of the laches and acquiescence. Third, that even assuming the impugned orders, which the petitioners desire should be quashed, are void, the petitioners having kept quiet and having acquiesced in them, this Court should not exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioners. In this connection, the learned counsel has cited Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (3), Sharif Ahmad Hashmi v. Chairman, Screening Committee (4), Zahoor Ahmad v. Mahmood Ali (5) and Hafeezud Din v. Khadim Hussain (6). Fourth, that the petitioners legally cannot pay the balance price and regularise the P. T. D. Earlier issued to Pir Anwar-ud-Din, but only Pir Anwar-ud-Din or his legal heirs are entitled to pay the same and regularise the transfer. In this connection, the learned counsel has cited M. Abdul Latif v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner (7). Fifth and last, that since the petitioners were transferees from a bogus holder of P. T. D., they had no right in the property or any right of being heard, as alleged. In this connection, the learned counsel has referred to Mst. Maryam Begum v. Ch. Shah Muhammad and others (8) and Muhammad Yamin and others v. Settlement Commissioner and others (9).
16. I have given my anxious consideration to this case. First, I will take up the preliminary objection of the respondents that both sets of petitioners are guilty of laches and acquiescence. It is the case of {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1980 SCMR 827 (2) PLD 1970 Lah. 6
(J) PLD 1964 SC 829 (4) 1980 SCMR 367
(5) PLD 1977 Lab. 1377 (6) PLD 1965 Lab. 439
(7) PLD 1976 Lah. 1265 (8) 1976 SCMR 342
(9) 1976 SCMR 489 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' D LAHORE 671 OF REVENUE, PUNJAB (Rustam S. Sidhwa, J)
' Muhammad Ramzan and Altaf Hussain, respondents Nos. 5 and 6, in para. 9 of their written statement, that Iftikhar-ud-Din, petitioner, being an ex-business partner of Pir Anwar-ud-Din, was fully aware of the proceedings being taken and various orders passed against Pir Anwar-ud-Din by the Settlement Department and therefore, he is guilty of laches and acquiescence. In affidavits filed by these two respondents with their re-joinder to the rejoinder filed by the petitioners to their written statement, which all were filed on 27-6-1983 on the last date of arguments, they also averred that Pir Ahtazad-ud-Din, son of Pir Anwar-ud-Din, and Iftikharuddin, petitioner, were Ham Zuif. Iftikhar-ud-Din, petitioner, in para. 12 (I) of his petition and in the rejoinder filed by him to the written statements of respondents Nos. 5 and 7, which he filed on 25-6-1983, submitted that no notice or intimation either from the Settlement Authorities or from Pir Anwar-ud-Din or from Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Hussain, respondents Nos. 5 and. 7, was received by him, which suppression and concealment on their part was mala fide, unlawful and fraudulent. Para. 4 of the petition of Iftikbar-ud-Din, petitioner, also shows that he became independent in 1962 and began conducting his business separately from that year. Since the affidavits etc. Were filed by the respondents on the last date of arguments, the petitioner could not controvert the same, But assuming he is a Ham Zulf of the son of Pir Anwar-ud-Din, his denial of knowledge of the proceedings still remains and has not been rebutted by documentary or other cogent evidence. In a similar situation, where a declarant and donee were close relations and there was nothing to show that the declarant had authorized the donee to pursue the case on his behalf, the Supreme Court in Mst. Taj Baro's case (1) held that the donee was entitled to be heard before any order was passed against her. In the instant case, the respondents admit that no notices were served to the petitioners by the Settlement Department in respect of any of the proceedings which started from 13-7-1968, when the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, first issued notice to Pir Anwar- ud-Din to pay the price of Rs, 9,460, till 5-2-1983, when the Transfer Orders were issued in respect of the northern half portion of the said property to Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Hussain, respondents Nos. 5 and 7. The file of this Settlement Department also does not show that any notice was issued to the petitioners. It is also not the respondents' case that they intimated to any of the petitioners at any earlier stage about the surreptitious manner in which they were trying to secure the Transfer Orders of the property, which they were holding as tenants tinder Iftikhar-ud- Din, petitioner. Before transfer orders were issued in favour of Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Hussain, respondent Nos. 5 and 7, they were called upon to furnish affidavits to show that no litigation was going on regarding the property proposed to be transferred in the favour.
They submitted the said affidavits (Annexure 'M M' and 'NN'). Being tenants of Iftikbar-ud-Din.
Petitioner, who was the transferee of the said property, which fact they knew, they were duty bound to disclose in their affidavits that Iftikhar-ud-Din, petitioner, was the transferee of th property from Pir Anwar-ud-Din, considering that it was the very sam property for which they had filed their forms and which was proposed to be transferred in their favour. They did not disclose these facts. The respondents are thus guilty of fraud and secured the said Transfer Orders (Annexure '00' and 'PP') by suppressing facts, which it was material on their part to disclose. Taking all these facts into consideration, there cannot be any doubt that both sets of petitioners are neither guilty of laches nor {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1983 SC 183 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' acquiescence. Rather, respondents Nos. 5 and 7 are guilty of fraud in having secured Transfer Orders without disclosing to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, the fact that the said property stood transferred to the petitioners.
17. There cannot be any doubt that both sets of petitioners are transferees of the northern and southern half portions of the property No, U-84 situate in Raja Bazar, Rawalpindi, having bought the same from Pir Anwarud-Din, the P. T. D. Holder, vide sale deed executed on 22-1-1962 and registered on 23-1-1962 (Annexure 'E'). The file of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, clearly shows that Pir Anwar-ud-Din secured the P. T. D. No, 97 dated 6-10-1961 (Annexure 'D') relating to the said property in the manner described in para. 3 above. The file does not show how, when, by whom and for what reason one of the compensation books submitted by Pir Anwar-ud-Din in the year 1960 was found to be bogus in the year 1968. There is also nothing on the record to suggest that Pit Anwar-ud-Din was privy to the preparation of the said bogus compensation book. In these circumstances, the P. T. D. Issued to Pir Anwar-ud-Din could not have been cancelled for fraud or misrepresentation.
18. As regards cancellation of Pir Anwar-ud-Din's P. T. D. For nonpayment of the full price, the same was permissible to the Department, when they came to know that one of the Compensation Books earlier offered for adjustment was found to be bogus and the full payment was not being made.
The amendment to para. 2 of the Settlement Scheme No, VIII not having come in by then, the Department had the right to cancel the P. T. D. For non-payment of full price, notwithstanding that more than 25% of the full price stood deposited. But though Pir Anwar-ud-Din, petitioner, as the original P. T. D. Holder, had the right tc defend himself to prove his payment, but since he had sold the property, the question still remains whether the vendees were entitled to notice before the P. T.
D. Was cancelled.
19. Both sets of petitioners being transferees for valuable consideration of the northern and southern half portions of property No, U-84, Raja Bazar, Rawalpindi, without notice of an:. Defect of title thereto, were necessary parties in respect of all proceedings which took place before the Settlement Authorities relating to the cancellation of Pir Anwar-ud-Din's P. T. D. The petitioners were also not privy to the preparation of the bogus compensation book C submitted by Pir Anwar-ud- Din before the Settlement Authorities in 1960. They were, therefore, necessary parties to all proceedings before the Settlement Authorities, whether taken for the recovery of the balance price or cancellation of P. T. D. From the name of Pir Anwar-ud-Din or for the transfer of th said property covered by the said P. T. D. To any third party. They were, therefore, entitled not only to notices from the Settlement Authorities but had the right to defend their rights. In Muhammad Siddique v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner a shop was cancelled from the original transferee's name and transferred to another, without notice to the original transferee's associates. It was held that the persons, who had so associated, had vested right in the property and could not be deprived of their rights without being heard. The case was, therefore, remanded for fresh disposal.
In Mst. Amina Begum v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner the property was resumed from the name of the original transferee without notice to all the heirs of the deceased transferee. It was held that the resumption was void, for the property resumed could not be said to be available for transfer to any other claimant and that notice served on one of the heirs could not be deemed to be notice to all the heirs and the case was remanded back for a fresh decision after hearing all the heirs. Both these cases are under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. In Din Muhammad's case, Javid Akhtar's case and Muhammad Latif's case, which are cases under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, where allotments of land were cancelled from the names of the original transferees, subsequent bona fide purchasers for value, who had no notice of defect of title and were not a party to the fraud, were held entitled to notices and the right of hearing and such cases were remanded to the Settlement Authorities with the direction that the subsequent purchasers should be heard. In the instant case, it cannot be said that Pir Anwar-udDin had no entitlement. The only dispute between him and the Settlement Department was about the balance payment of Rs, 5,460. Both sets of petitioners being bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration, without notice of defect of title, were entitled to notices from the Settlement Department before the P. T. D. Of Pir Anwar-ud-Din was cancelled. All the impugned orders and notices and the Transfer Orders issued in favour of respondents Nos. 5 and 7, therefore, are illegal, null and void and appear to have been passed mala fide.
20. As regards the submission of the respondents that the petitioners cannot clear the balance price due to the Department, which gracious act only Pir Anwar-ud-Din, the original transferee, or his legal heirs, can do, there E is no legal basis in this submission whatsoever. The petitioners being transferees for valuable consideration have now stepped into the shoes of Pir Anwar-ud-Din and they have every right to clear his dues, if any.
21. For the foregoing reasons, both writ petitions (W. P. No, 20/R-83 and W. P. 25/R-83) are accepted and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's notice dated 13-7-1968 addressed to Pir Anwar-ud-Din (Annexure 'W'), the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, dated 9-9-1968 (Annexure 'Z'), the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi dated 22-10-1968 (Annexure 'AA'), the letter of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, dated 25-10-1968 addressed to Pir Anwar-ud-Din (Annexure 'BB% the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, dated 13-1-1969 (Annexure `DD'), the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi dated 25-3-1979 (Annexure 'FF') and the Transfer Orders Nos. 28068 and 28069 dated 5-2-1983 issued by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, to Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Hussain, respondents Nos. 5 to 7 (Annexures '00' and `PP') in respect of the northern half portion of shop No, U/84, Raja Bazar, Rawalpindi, are hereby declared to have been passed without lawful authority and all the abovesaid impugned notices, letters, orders and Transfer Orders are set aside and quashed and the P. T. D. Issued to Pir Anwar-ud-Din is restored and declared to be operative. The case is remanded to the Deputy Settlemen Commissioner, Rawalpindi, whO\ shall proceed with the case from the poin where he first issued notice to realise the balance amount of the price fro Pir Anwar-ud-Din, the original transferee, but he shall do so after givingfF notice to the legal heirs of Pir Anwar-ud-Din and to both sets of petitioners, who have filed the present two writ petitions, and, after hearing them, h may pass such orders as he considers fit and proper in law.
22. The petitioners shall be entitled to their costs.