1. ' The petitioner has challenged the order of Additional Settlement Commissioner, Sukkur Division, dated 4th August, 1975 by which he held that shop bearing City Survey No, B-434/1 and 2, situated at Jinnah Chowk Sukkur was not purchased by the petitioner and permanent transfer deed was illegally and fraudulently issued to him.
2. ' The facts of the case are that the shop was auctioned in favour of the petitioner on 23rd July, 1960 and he gave highest bid of Rs, 15,000 which was accepted on 19th September, 1960 and he had paid the price and permanent transfer deed (P.T.D.) was issued in his favour on 10th January, 1966.
3. The respondent No, 2, Mir Rehman Khan challenged the validity of auctioned proceedings. The Settlement Commissioner issued notice under section 20(3) of Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 on 30th October, 1968 for appearance of parties on 21st October, 1968.
4. On the date of hearing the petitioner could not appear and he sent telegram for adjournment. The telegram was not received in time, therefore, ex parte order was passed and the auctioned proceedings were set aside. The petitioner filed C.P. No, 622/1968 before the High Court. This High Court came to the conclusion that impugned ex parte order was passed without lawful authority and consequently it was set aside on 5th February, 1973 but the matter was referred to the Settlement Commissioner who was directed to decide the matter after hearing- the petitioner. The Settlement Commissioner transferred the proceedings to Additional Settlement Commissioner who finally decided the matter.
5. Mr. Maroof Ali Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that High Court while deciding C. P. No, 622/1968, directed the Settlement Commissioner to decide, this matter himself, but he has wrongly transferred the matter to the Additional Settlement Commissioner, therefore, impugned order is not in accordance with the direction of the High Court. He has relied on a case of Ahmed Did v. Bashir Ahmed and 9 others (1), where it was held that Settlement Commissioner instead o disposing of a case, remitted the same to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, is clearly without jurisdiction.
6. ' Mr. Khalid Habibullah, Advocate appearing for respondent No, 2 has submitted that he has no objection if the present case is remanded back. In view of these above facts and consent of counsel for both the parties the case is remanded back with direction that Settlement Commissioner shall call the parties and after hearing the parties dispose of this matter within six months on merits according to law.
7. ' The Senior Member, Board of Revenue Sind should make over this case to Notified Settlement Commissioner having jurisdiction.