1. ' This petition is directed against the order dated 14th May, 1974 passed by the Settlement Commissioner Sind whereby the revision application filed by the petitioners, was dismissed.
2. ' The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are that house No, II-A/240 situated at Tando Adam was transferred under Earmarking Scheme in favour of the respondent No, 3 Mst. Zubeda in the year, 1959 for Rs, 2,200. In 1963 P. T. D. Was also issued in her favour wherein house transferred to her was shown as bearing City Survey No, 262.
3. Property No, II-A/240-A on the other hand was transferred to Mst. Zahirun Nisa (predecessor in title of the petitioner) in auction sale and she was issued P. T. D. On 22nd February, 1962, wherein the corresponding City Survey number of this property was shown as City Survey Nos. 262 and 263. Mst.
4. Zahirun Nisa sold this property by a registered sale deed dated 3rd July, 1964 to the petitioner and in the conveyance deed these two City Survey numbers were shown as corresponding to II-A/240- A.
2. This led to litigation between the parties, which ultimately resulted in the passing of the impugned order dated 14th May, 1974 in revision petitioner by the Settlement Commissioner who found that property No, II-A/240-A transferred to Mst. Zahirunnisa corresponded to City Survey No, C/263 and Property No, II-A/240 which stands transferred to Mst. Zubeda is situated on City Survey No, C/262. The revision petition was dismissed with the observation that it was a belated application and barred by time.
3. It is not necessary to go into details of the various proceedings as the question involved in this petition is restricted as to the identity of the property transferred to Mst. Zubeda/respondent No, 3 and Mst. Zahirunnisa, the predecessor in title of the petitioner. In order to resolve the above controversy, it would be advantageous to refer to the findings given by the Settlement Authorities at various stages ;
(1) The first order which we find on the subject was passed by Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sanghar on 8th February, 1965, relevant portion reads as follows :- "`The matter seems to be quite simple. The above D. S. Numbers have correctly been transferred to their respective occupants. Value has been paid and P. T. Ds. Have been issued to the transferees.
5. However it seems some disputes regarding City Survey number which is not the concern of this Department. Moreover Mr. Abdul Hamid fresh Attorney of Mst. Zahirun Nisa admits that he is only entitled to the extent of C. S. No, 263 but his legal representative Mr. Abu Muslim Siddiqui, advocate, had not agreed to it."
6. ' Having observed as above the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner observed that since the P. T. Ds. Have already been issued, the parties may seek remedy in Court of law.
(ii) It is the case of the respondent No, 3 that the above order was challenged before the Additional Settlement Commissioner in Appeal No, 25/1965, and that on 20th February, 1965 Mst. Zahirun Nisa the respondent No, 1 in that appeal attended the said Court and filed her affidavit admitting therein that her house bears No, II-A/240-A which corresponds to City Survey No, C/263. The Additional Settlement Commissioner disposed of the said appeal by order dated 22nd February, 1965 and directed the Deputy Settlement Commissioner Hyderabad to enter City Survey numbers in the respective transfer documents of the parties including P. T. D. If it involves no disputes.
(iii) The matter thereafter came to Deputy Settlement Commissioner who by his order dated 29th June, 1965 observed that since the parties do not agree among themselves as to the City Survey numbers of the respective properties, he was, therefore, not competent to make corrections in the.
7. P. T. Ds. Or re-open the matter. He further obsetied that the parties if aggrieved may seek remedy from the Court of law.
(iv) The matter thereafter on a revision petition filed by the petitioner came before the Additional District Judge/Settlement Commissioner Sanghar who by order dated 4th June, 1965 observed :- " In her own affidavit before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner the opponent Mst. Zahirun Nisa has stated that she is the transferee of the house bearing City Survey No, C1263 only corresponding to the Custodian No, II-/240-A. She has further stated that property situated on City Survey No, C/262 corresponding Nos. II-A/217 and H-A/240-A was transferred opponents Ahmad Ali and Mst.
8. Zubeda. She got the said house from open auction for Rs, 1,200 only. The P. T. Ds. Were accordingly corrected by the relevant authorities."
9. ' Having observed as above, it was held :- "The applicant's case is that he had purchased house No, II-A/240-A from opponent Mst. Zahirun Nisa through her general attorney, Jamal Ahmad who is the husband of opponent Zahirun Nisa. He alleges that No, 11-A/240-A corresponds to C. S. Nos. 262 and 263. According to the affidavit of the owner, Mst. Zahirun Nisa her house 1I-A/240-A was situated on C. S. No, 263 only. Since the owner herself had no title over house on City Survey No, 262 at Tando Adam she could transfer only (?) to the purchase (?) applicant. Except the word of the applicant there is no proof from the record that City Survey No, 262 corresponded to 11-A/240-A.
10. ' 1, therefore, dismiss the revision application and maintain order of the learned Additional S. C.
11. Hyderabad dated 22nd February, 1965. Parties informed in the Court."
(v) I may also mention here that against the order dated 29th June, 1965 passed by Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Ahmed Ali (a son of Mst. Zubeda and transferee of house No, II-A-217) as well as the respondent No, 3 Mst. Zubeda, also filed Appeal No, 92/65 before the Additional Settlement Commissioner. After hearing the parties the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner by order passed on 13th July, 1965 observed that in the Appeal No, 25/65 by order passed by the then Additional Settlement Commissioner Hyderabad it was held that the house bearing Custodian Nos. II-A/217 and II-A/240 corresponding to City Survey No, C/262 was transferred in favour of Ahmed Ali and Zubeda which fact Mst. Zahirun Nisa herself had admitted and she conceded to be the transferee of the property bearing Custodian No, II-A/ 240-A corresponding to City Survey No, C/263 and that this "position was agreed to be adopted in the transfer documents issued in their respective favour in the order dated 22nd February, 1965 passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Hyderabad."
12. ' Accordingly learned Additional Settlement Commissioner while setting aside the order dated 29th June, 1965 passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner directed him to implement theprder of 22nd February, 1965 of Settlement Commissioner in letter and spirit.
(vi) The matter thereafter came before the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner Sind, at Karachi in Revision Application No, SCH-13/ 74 (SNG). The learned Settlement Commissioner in his considered order dated 14th May, 1974 referred to the affidavit filed by Zahirun Nisa, predecessor- in-interest of the petitioner, and after taking into consideration the facto and various orders passed held that the house No, II-A/240-A was transferred to Mst. Zahirun Nisa and it bears C. S. No, 263 only, and that the house bearing No, II-A/240 corresponding to City Survey No, 262 was transferred to Mst. Zubeda.
13. ' The learned Settlement Commissioner further held that necessary correction was made in the P. T.
14. Ds. By scoring out Survey No, 262 on .8th April, 1966, and that the petitioner had received copy of the aforesaid order dated 13th July, 1965 passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 19th July, 1965 ; and as such the revision filed in 1974 (1. e. After almost nine years) was clearly time- barred and otherwise suffered from inordinate delay. With findings thus given on merits as well as holding the revision petition as highly belated the same was dismissed by the order passed on 14th May, 1974.
4. The concurrent findings given by almost all the Settlement authorities, are that property transferred to Mst. Zahirun Nisa (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner) bearing Custodian No, 117A/240-A corresponds to City Survey C/263, while Mst. Zubeda, the respondent No, 3 is the transferee of property Custodian No, II-A/240 corresponding to City Survey No, C/262.
15. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show that the impugned orders passed are without lawful authority and of no legal effect. On the contrary not only the orders are based upon appraisal of material on record, but I also find that there was affidavit on record before the Settlement authorities filed by Mst. Zahirun Nisa predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner wherein she had admitted that she was the transferee of City Survey No, 263 corresponding to Custodian No, 1.1-A/240-A. Perusal of the order of the Settlement Authorities shows that the existence or validity of the said affidavit at no stage was challenged.
16. It is well settled law that in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction the High Court is not empowered to interfere with decisions of a Court or A Tribunal of inferior jurisdiction merely because in its opinion the decision is wrong.
17. ' It has authoritatively been held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Hussain Munir v. Sikandar that where there is jurisdiction to decide a particular matter then there is jurisdiction to decide it rightly or wrongly and that the fact that the order is incorrect does not render the decision without jurisdiction.
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that the petition is dismissed as having no merits. There shall however be no order as to costs. PLD 1974 SC 1391 1