' This order will dipose of Writ Petitions Nos. 287/R-76 and 451/ R-75 as these are connected matters.
2. Shado Mirza, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners in the' first petition, was transferred on his C.S. Form property No, S. 84-R=60. a shop with the Choubara thereon, Main Bazar, Anarkali Lahore by the D.3- puty Settlement Commissioner on 1st December, 1959. The occupant of the Choubara was Muhammad Bakhsh a local. After the transfer Muhammad Bukhsh, predecessor-in-interest of Muhammad Jan, etc. Executed a rent deed in favour of Shado Mirza acknowledging the latter's ownership on 22nd July, 1960. Many years later on 27th March, 1962, Muhammad Bakhsh filed an application asking for transfer of the Choubara in' his possession which was allowed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on {{BLURR}} 28th October, 1969 without realising that the property stood transferred in favour of Shado Mirza since 10 years earlier and without notice to him vide order dated 1st December, 1959. Shado Mirza naturally filed an appeal against the order of Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 28th October, 1969 which was accepted by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 12th October, 1971.
Muhammad Bakhsh filed a revision petition which has been dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner on 12th February, 1976. However, in exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction,,the Settlement Commissioner has taken away the entire property,frothiShado ,Mirza.
This is challenged by Shado Mirza's heirs as well is by Muhainpod Bakhsh's heirs in the above- mentioned two titled petitions respectively. ,,, ;.c WI
3. A Muhammad Bakhsh's heirs Muhammad Jan, etc.'s Writ Petition bearing No, 451/R-76 is liable to be dismissed for the simple reason, that the property was transferred to Shado Mirza by the Deputy SettleMeiit Commissioner on 1st December, 1959. Their predecesso0Onteiest Muhammad Bakhsh acknowledged the ownership of Shado Ilit4a5- 11,,`executing a rent deed on 22nd July, 1960. After nearly a dec de,"We-liad no right to ask the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to transfer him the portion of the property and the Settlement Commissioner wasxliedflyqn error to have transferred the same to him without realising that theNtottot perty stood transferred for the last 10 years.
Shado Mirza's appeal was rightly accepted by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on ,12th October ,l 1,971;vand property allowed to remain transferred, to Shikdo Mirzai:4Anhammacl Bakhsh's revision petition had no legs to stand upon and consequently, the rejection of his revision petition by the Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 12th February, 1976 was perfectly valid.
Consequently, the Writ Petition No, 451/R-76 filed by his heirs MUjiarnmad Jan etc. Is dismissed but, in the circumstances, the parties are leftlo -bear their own costs. ..- (2A'A
4. As regards the right of Shado Mirza's heirs to retaihi-the shop transferred to them on 1st December, 1959 which has been tale-Witt** from them too and ordered to be auctioned under the impugned ofddikdated 12th February, 1976 in exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdictioW-Iti'4eed only be said that the order proceeds on the assumption that "Vdtilton cannot be transferred two properties. But that': is only whedlithelitiroperties are of the same categories, either houses or shops. Transfer t,,of a shop and a house is perfectly permissible. The property in questiontheing a shop with Chaubara situated in commercial area, was a shop liddek the law and it was rightly transferred to Shado Mirza as a shop. He nould not be deprived thereof because he had been transferred a house. A claimant displaced person transferred a property is entitled to remain in peace at least after more than fifteen years. The order of transfer o shop in his favour had become final and could not be set at naught without regard to time factor of 15 years. Citizens are notApve at the mercy of the authority of public servants till infinity. Thereecre,,,,iitepri vation of transfer of a claimant displaced person itt,-posseiii:0049 disposal of the property through auction was clearly uncalled for, ..Ip al and without lawful authorit y. 2 I i.2 ', ,..22A 2,1Q Ili , 2 - ; LISA 1 2'. AliZOIV")
2 2
5. By the same order, the Settlement Commissioner besides clepriv, i3g S4do Mirza of the transfer of the shop, has also taken away a po tioii it, Addiltignal ,ettlernent Commissioner dated 17th May, 1960. The-41thei cif thejesideRtia) portion transferred to him by the appellate order' ,o 1 ordei was set aside on the revision of one Nazir Ahmad by the Settlihi Commissioner on 28th September, 1960 but this order was siiletin Shado Mirza's L.P.A. No, 41 of 1962 decided on 7th Feburary, 1066 when the matter was remitted for fresh decision. When it was so taken up, the then revision petitioner Nazir Ahmad walked out and allowed the revision petition to be dismissed for non-prosecution. The revision petition having been dismissed for non prosecution, the appellate order of tttelc Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 17th May, 1960 held the field. The portion in question was in possession of post office but it never asked for its transfer. It was part of the residential portion transferred to th petitioners by the Additional Settlement Commissioner vide the appella4 order ,dated 17th May, 1960. Without notice to the transferee S114 Miri4jit was anctiOned in favour of Zahoor Ahmad but on the repr tatibt'Othe fordik the auction was not confirmed and rightly so. KtF auction'Vas illegal for having been held in consequence of the order agc, thel.'ettlement Commissioner dated 28th September, 1960 Whieh itself had' beib set aSide by the High Court in L.P.A. No 41 of 1962 decided'on 7th February, 1966. The invocation of sou motu revisional jurisdiction in this behalf bythe4ettlement Commissioner in his order dated 12th February, 1976 and totally without any justification whatsoever.
TranWig 404'favour of Shado Mirza in 1959 and 1960 had become finalOther contesting parties had lost the game and pile out of the arena. Finre was no justification to order or allow auction for fresh pardei Obilithtti'abme in to start combat and throw the parties into the tiktaing litigation. Exercise of public power especially under SerOetnerirleriti' if.: to settle people and not to unsettle settled pea e.
Sou fhotu revisional jurisdiction exercised by the Settlement CO*IxtriSioneeilde the impugned order dated 12th Februrary, 1976 after, 17/16Years of'final orders is negation of all principles of justice and slily."' vergionInf the statute under which he purported to exercise the jurisdictioel His said Order is clearly without lawful authority and of no legal effect:.' It is so declared. Shado Mirza's heirs are entitled to remain id 'peace and relleili,;:Their petition is accepted with costs to be borne bl the Settlement Department. b:AP..3eaoq 'IllikfOrementioned two petitions are thus disposed t nalliv '..7.?,,S1 Itt Order accordingly. Ve. To trilel bni.1:7t