1. ' The petitioners who are non-claimants, applied under para. 6 of the Settlement Scheme VIII framed under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, (hereinafter called the Act), for transfer of Property No, A. M. 293-III-B-192, Tenaments Nos. I/1 and 2/1, known as `Mezban Hotel' situated at Frere Road, Karachi. The property was transferred to them on the evaluation price of Rs, 2,16,000, by the Deput1 Settlement Commissioner (II), Karachi, by the order dated 22-10-1973. The petitioners aggrieved by the transfer price of the property fixed at Rs, 2,16,000, filed a revision application with the Settlement & Rehabilitation Commissioner, Karachi, the respondent, for reduction of the price. The respondent dismissed the application as being barred by time and also on the ground that there was no justification for reduction of the price, by the order dated 27-11-1973.
2. ' Therefore, the petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 199 of the Constitution.
3. ' I have heard Mt. Qazi Mehfooz Ahmed Advocate for the petitioners, and Mr. Abdus Sattar, Advocate for the respondent.
4. Mr. Qazi Mehfooz Ahmed contends that the petitioners were entitled to a rebate of 10 per cent on the price on which the property was transferred to the petitioners. In support of this contention he relies on para. 23-B of the Schedule to the Act read with para. 7, sub-para. (4) of the Settlement Scheme VIII, para. 7, sub-para. (4) of the Scheme provides that the provisions of paras. 16-B, 16-C, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23-A, 23-B, 24, 25 and 26 of the Schedule to the Act shall as far as possible apply to the properties transferred under para. 6 of the Scheme ' In order to appreciate the contention it may be convenient to reproduce hereinbelow para. 23-B of the Schedule, to the Act which reads as follows :- "Any person to whom the benefit of payment by instalments has been granted under this Schedule and who has been paying such instalments regularly shall, from such date as may be specified by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, be entitled to a rebate of ten per cent. Of the amount payable by him if he makes advance payment in a lump sum of an amount equal to at least eighteen monthly instalments."
5. ' It may be mentioned first here that under para. 22 of the Schedule a non.Claimant displaced person or a local to whom a property is transferred is entitled to pay the price within one year in 12 equal monthly instalments, although he is required to pay public dues and other amount payable if any, under the other provisions of the Act immediately, though no doubt, this concession is not available to a non-claimant displaced person or a local who has purchased the property by means of auction.
6. ' Now, a perusal of the above-quoted provisions of para. 23-B shows that the petitioners would have been entitled to rebate of 10 per cent. On the amount paid by them if they had made advance payment in lump sum of an amount equal to at least 18 monthly instalments.
7. In this case firstly, the petitioners did not make payment of any instalments muchless payment of amount of any instalments in advance, secondly, under this para. a non-claimant or local transferee was required to pay in advance an amount equal to 18 monthly instalments which condition the petitioners could not comply for under para. 22 of the Schedule they were required to pay the entire price of the property within one year in 12 equal monthly instalments, which leads me to the conclusion that para. 23-B, on which Mr. Ahmad solely placed reliance, was not at all applicable to the case of the petitioners.
8. ' In any case, it does not appear from the record that the point now raised before me was raised before the respondent for the revision before him was filed for reduction of the price and not against any order disallowing any claim for rebate. Lastly, the revision application was dismissed by the respondent mainly on the ground of limitation and this finding is not questioned before me in any manner.
9. ' Accordingly, I find no substance whatsoever, in this petition and therefore, dismiss it with no order as to costs for Mr. Abdus Sattar learned counsel for the respondent did not claim the same.