' This petition in directed against the order of the Settlement Commissioner Sind, whereby the order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner has been confirmed. The petitioner is a claimant displaced person who obtained transfer of house bearing Custodian No, IV-A123. It seems that he also obtained transfer of house bearing Custodian No, 1V-A-122. It is alleged that a portion of house bearing No, IV-A-I23 was in possession of respondent No, 4, but he did not apply for its transfer. The Settlement Authorities issued P.T.O. Dated 10th February, 1960 and P.T.D. Dated 20th March, 1963 in favour of the petitioner in respect of house bearing Custodian No, IV-A-123. It has been alleged by the petitioner that City Survey No, 605 Ward 'A' was also mentioned in the P.T.D. But the name of Hindu Evacuee was wrongly mentioned which was corrected later on. The petitioner filed ejectment application against respondent No, 4 who filed written statement, in which it was pleaded that respondent No, 3 is the transferee of the house, which bears No, IV-A-123-A. The petitioner made enquiries which revealed that on 27th June, 1974 respondent No, 3 had applied for the transfer of the said house and submitted his application under Scheme No,
8. Respondent No, 2 called for the report which was submitted on 28th June, 1974 stating that the property was unsurveyed. A new number IV-A-I23-A was allotted to it and it was transferred to respondent No, 3 and such transfer was approved on 28th June, 1974. P.T.D. Was issued to respondent No, 3 on 29th June, 1974.
Respondent No, 4 got the survey number of the house changed to 625 instead of 605. Faced with this situation the petitioner applied to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner that in his P.T.D. Survey No, 625 has been wrongly mentioned and it should be corrected as Survey No, 605 and further requested for the cancellation of transfer. To respondent No,
3. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner called for the report, inspected the premises and rejected the application. A revision was filed which was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 28th February, 1976. Mr. Maroof Ali Khan, the learned counsel has contended that Survey No, 625 was fraudulently inserted in the P.T.D. Which should have been Survey No, 605 which comprises of the entire property including the house transferred to the petitioner as well as in possession of respondent No, 4 and the same was transferred to the petitioner. In this regard the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had called for the report and even inspected the premises. The inspection and survey had revealed that the house transferred to respondent No, covered an area of 805 sq. Ft. Whereas the house transferred to the petitioner covered an area of 1401 sq. Ft. The finding was that th house with an area of 805 sq. Ft. On a part of Survey No, 605 had not been transferred to the petitioner and, therefore, it was disposed of two respondent No,
3. It is pertinent to note that the learned Settlement Commissioner after examining the records and hearing the Advocates for the parties has observed that the property bearing Custodian No, IV-A-123 was transferred to the petitioner and in the P.T.D. No corresponding survey number was mentioned but somehow or the other the petitioner managed the mutation of Survey No, 605 as corresponding city survey number in the City Survey record. After considering the relevant P.T.O. And the area of the petitioner's house, disputed house and the adjacent City Survey Numbers he came to the conclusion that the property bearing No, 1V-A/123-A was properly transferred to respondent No,
3. These are questions of fact which have been decided by both the learned Authorities and nothing has been shown to establish that any fraud was committed or that any material evidence has been excluded from consideration while arriving at this finding.
' Mr. Maroof Ali Khan, the learned counsel has contended that transfer of house No, IV-123A was made in post haste and is mala fide. On the other hand, Mr Ahmedullah Farooqui the learned counsel has contended that the property was an evacuee property and the Settlement Authorities had merely allotted a separate number to it as neither it had been transferred to the petitioner nor it was in his possession. In any event the learned counsel contended that the Settlement Authority had the jurisdiction upto 30th June, 1974 to transfer this property. The contention of the learned counsel seems to be correct as the property had been declared as an evacuee property and portion in possession of the petitioner was transferred to him. The next contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that in any event the application for correction of P.T.D. Of the petitioner or cancellation of transfer made in favour of respondent No, 3 was filed on 29th March, 1975 when the Settlement Authority did not have any jurisdiction to do so. The learned counsel has contended that on this date even clerical mistake could not be corrected. This point is well-settled and need not be elaborated further as the Settlement Authority had no jurisdiction to grant a relief prayed by the petitioner, in his application dated 29th March, 1975. As the orders passed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 do not work injustice to any party I would refuse to set them aside.
In these circumstances I see no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the respondents Nos.1 and 2. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.