1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The appellants are the legal heirs of one Haji Din Muhammad while the first five respondents, who will be referred in the sequel as the respondents, are the legal heirs of one Abdul Karim. The bone of contention is one of the three chaubaras located over the ground-floor in a composite property situated in Lyallpur (now Faisalabad).
2. ' Abdul Karim, being in occupation of the chaubara, was transferred the same on 13-4-1960 by an order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and a P. T.
0. Was issued to him in pursuance thereof in 1961. However, despite the transfer of the chaubara in his favour, Abdul Karim had not paid its transfer price, which was fixed at Rs, 13,400 until his death which occurred sometimes in 1965-66. After his death, his legal heirs applied for the reduction of the transfer price on the ground that the chaubara was in a dilapidated condition. This application, however was dismissed and the applicants were directed to pay the transfer price within a period of one month. They did not however, pay the price within the stipulated period and, therefore, the chaubara was ordered to be resumed and disposed of by auction. Meanwhile, the first respondent Mst. Aziz Begum widow of the late Abdul Karim had filed an appeal against the said order and the Additional Settlement Commissioner, by way of an interim relief had by his order dated 10-11-1970, directed that if she deposited a sum of Rs, 5,000 by 25-11-1970, the property should not be disposed of through auction till the decision of the appeal. This amount was not deposited and, therefore, the Settlement Department included the chaubara in question in the auction list in February, 1971 and it was subsequently put to auction and purchased therein by Haji Din Muhammad . For Rs, 13,400. The auction was, thereafter, confirmed on 10-3-1971 and the P. T. D. For the chaubara was also issued to Haji Din Muhammad on 30-4-1971.
3. ' However, the appeal that was filed by the respondent No. 1 against the resumption of the chaubara was still pending and came up for hearing before the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 28-8-1972. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner allowed the appeal on the ground that notices issued for the payment of the transfer price of the chaubara and for the resumption of the chaubara had been issued only to Mst. Aziz Begum and not to all the legal heirs of Abdul Karim. As the case has ultimately been decided on the basis of the aforesaid order its relevant portion may be reproduced hereunder with advantage :- "As noted above, the file does not show any proceedings to call the legal successors of the deceased transferee Abdul Karim. There is only one Mst. Aziz Begum, his widow, who has been called and word "etc." has been added with her name. It is really something strange. When no legal heirs have been properly made according to law how the property can be cancelled only after calling the widow of the deceased transferee. It is possible that the other heirs may be minors and the file does not show who are other heirs. Considering this illegality I hold that a gross injustice has been made with the heirs of the deceased transferee. Thy auction took place in the face of the appeal pending undecided and also in the face of the application presented for reduction of price of the chaubara The file does not show whether any consideration was made about the assessm ent of the price of the chaubara which is agitated to be damaged room. In the circumstances, the auction of the property and the issue of P. T. D. Are acts against law. Hence, the appeal is accepted and the case is remanded to the learned lower Court to pass a judicial order for the appointment of the heirs of the deceased Abdul Karim and then the property transferred to the deceased according to its conditions and as allowed under the law. Its transfer in favour of auction-purchaser is set aside." (Underlining* is ours).
4. ' Aggrieved by the above order dated 28-8-1972 passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Haji Din Muhammad challenged it by filing a revision before the Settlement Commissioner. This was dismissed by him vide his order dated 10-11-1973 and his order was not challenged any further by Haji Din Muhammad and, therefore, became final.
5. ' In pursuance of the order of remand passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 28-8-1972, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner took up the case in presence of both the parties.
6. He came to the conclusion that the presumption proceedings against the respondents were properly taken up and the property was rightly auctioned in favour of Haji Din Muhammad and, accordingly, by his order dated 14-6-1984, upheld the auction in his favour. This order of the Deputy Settlenient Commissioner was challenged by the first respondent in a revision which was accepted by the Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 24-6-1974 on the ground that the Additional.
7. Settlement Commissioner had, in his order dated 2878-1972, already cancelled the auction in favour of Haji Din Muhammad and allowed the revision filed by respondent No. 1 with the direction that all the heirs of the deceased Abdul Karim be appointed and the property transferred to them according to law after adjudicating the respondents' claim for reduction of the transfer price of the chaubara. As a consequence, he also ordered that the transfer in favour of the auction-purchaser Haji Din Muhammad be set aside.
8. ' Since Haji Din Muhammad had died in the meanwhile his heirs the appellants herein, filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court to challenge the above order of the learned Settlement Commissioner dated 24-6-1974 (W. P. No, 215-R/75). This was allowed on the ground that Haji Din Muhammad had not been heard before the above order dated 24-6-1974 was, passed by the Settlement Commissioner and, therefore, the said order was without lawful authority. The case was, therefore, sent back to the Settlement Commissioner for decision according to law after notice to the appellants. The matter was, therefore, reheard by the Additional Commissioner (L) Sargodha with powers of the Settlement Commissioner, who decided the same in favour of the appellants herein, holding that the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 14-6-1974, whereby the auction in favour of Haji Din Muhammad was upheld was correct and needed no interference.
9. Accordingly, he dismissed the revision filed by the respondents herein vide dated 1-1-1976.
10. ' Feeling dissatisfied by the above order dated 1-1-1976 the respondents filed a writ petition to challenge it (W. P. No, 252-R of 1976). This was heard by the same learned Single Judge who had decided earlier writ petition (W. P. No, 215-R/75) and the said learned Judge was pleased to accept the [Here in italics] ' respondents' writ petition. The learned Judge was of the view that the auction in favour of the appellants having been set aside by the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 28-8-1972 and their revision petition filed against the said order having also failed and no challenge having been thrown to these orders by pursuing the matter further, no tight in the property was left in their favour. Hence, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner could not have, by his order dated 14-6-1976, restored the auction in their favour which stood already cancelled. His jurisdiction extended only to declaring the legal heirs of the late Abdul Karim and ascertaining the transfer price of the chaubara and allowing the respondents an opportunity to pay the same in accordance with law. The order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to restore the auction in favour of Haji Din Muhammad was outside the scope of the order of remand. Accordingly, the order dated 1-1-1976 passed by the Settlement Commissioner, whereby the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 14-6-1974 was restored, was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It was further ordered that the authority competent to decide this case, shall act in accordance with the directions as given in the order dated 28th August, 1972 and require the respondents to pay the transfer price so determined in accordance with law. The writ petition was decided by the learned Judge in the High Court with the above direction vide his judgment dated 8-6-1977. This appeal, by leave of this Court, is directed against the aforesaid judgment of the High Court dated 8-5-1977.
11. ' The only ground pressed before us by Mr. Bashir Ahmad Ansari was that the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 28-8-1972 was challenged by Haji Din Muhammad by filing a revision before the Settlement Commissioner and, although the learned Settlement Commissioner dismissed it by his order passed on 10-11-1973, in his aforesaid order he had left the matter open so far as the appellants were concerned. In other words, the plea of the learned counsel is that during the remand proceedings, in view of the subsequent order dated 10-11-1973 passed by the learned Settlement Commissioner, the entire case was left open for re-examination by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. Therefore, the learned Judge in the High Court was not justified in holding that the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 28-8-1972 was a final order and the case could not be re-opened during the remand proceeding and the authority hearing the case after the remand was obliged to comply with its terms.
12. ' Unfortunately, the copy of the order dated 10-11-1973 has not been placed on the record of the appellants to substantiate their plea that despite the dismissal of the revision petition filed by them against the order dated 28-8-1972 by the learned Settlement Commissioner, the said order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner had been modified by him in the sense contended for by their learned counsel. Since there is no material on the record to substantiate this plea and, on the other hand, the view taken by the High Court is supported by the material on the record before us we do not think that any ground has been made out for interfering with the said order.
13. ' This appeal must, therefore, fail and is, accordingly, dismissed hereby. The parties, however, are left to bear their own costs.