' The dispute in this writ petition relates to a house situate in Khasra No, 1325 in Noorpur Thal of Tehsil Khushab of District Sargodha. The Khasra alongwith some other agricultural land was transferred to respondent No, 2 under the Rehabilitation immovable property applied for its transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. By an order dated 17th January, 1964 a Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred the house to him under the said Act. Respondent No, 2 agitated against this transfer before the Settlement authorities under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act. His case was that the house in dispute was not urban immovable property and that as he was transferee of the field he was entitled to the house as well in accordance with paragraph 42 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. His appeal was accepted by the Settlement Commissioner (Land) on 5th January, 1967 and the house was transferred to him.
2. In this writ petition the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the house in dispute was urban immovable property and as such it formed part of the compensation pool set up under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. Consequently the settlement authorities operating under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the transfer already made in his favour.
3. The only question for consideration is whether the house in dispute can be regarded as an urban immovable property. Subsection (13) of section 2 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, defines the word "urban". It reads as follows :- " 'Ubra' means situated within the limits of a municipal corporation, a municipal committee, a notified area committee, a town area committee, a small town committee, a sanitary committee, or a cantonment, as those limits existed on the 14th day of August, 1947."
' It is common ground that on 14th August, 1947 Noorpur Thal fell within the limits of a Notified Area Committee but after the said date, sometime in 1955, it was downgraded to the status of a Punchayat area. The learned counsel for respondent No, 2 has submitted that a property could be described as urban only if two conditions were together present. These conditions, according to him, were -
(i) the area was included within the limits of a local authority of the nature mentioned in subsection
(13) on 14th August, 1947, and :
(ii) it should have continued to remain within the limits of a local authority of the said nature even subsequently till the time the compensation pool was created.
4. So far as condition No, 1 is concerned the learned counsel is entirely correct. However, with regard to the second condition there is no substance in his contention. A perusal of the subsection makes it clear that the status of an area is to be determined with reference to its position as it existed on 14th day of August, 1947 and not with reference to any subsequent date. Had the intention been otherwise, the subsection would have contained words to that effect.
5. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the house in dispute was rightly regarded by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner who transferred it in favour of the petitioner as urban immovable property. Since it fell in the compensation pool constituted under the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, the Settlement Commissioner operating under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act had no jurisdiction to transfer it to Respondent No, 2.
6. For the reasons stated above, I accept this writ petition and declare the order of the Settlement Commissioner (Land) Sargodha dated 5th January, 1967 as of no legal effect. The petitioner shall also have his costs of this petition from respondent.