1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 16-6-1981 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Constitution Petition arising out of a settlement case, was allowed.
2. The dispute relates to land--Khasra No.282 which was declared by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 24-2-1966 as a building site. It was done under section 2 (3) of the Displaced Persons Land Settlement Act, 1958 and it was to be disposed of by auction. Notwithstanding this declaration the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner got it allotted as urban (agricultural) land on 31st of March, 1966. Muhammad Sharif the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent purchased the land in dispute as urban site in a duly held auction in 1970.
3. In the contest between the parties the petitioner succeeded before the Settlement Authorities but on respondent's constitutional petition the High Court restored the transfer through auction in their favour of the land in dispute, as a building site, in preference to its transfer to the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioner as urban (agricultural) land. The petitioner has, therefore, sought leave to appeal.
4. Learned counsel has contended that although the order declaring the land in dispute as urban building site under section 2 (3) was made on 24-2-1966 the Notification in that behalf was issued on 8-4-1966. Therefore the transfer of the land otherwise as building site made on 31st of March, 1966 in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, was lawful. He further explained that the Chief Settlement Commissioner having chosen to notify his declaration made under section 2 (3), this declaration would not be effective prior to the issuance of the Notification.
5. Same argument was advanced before the High Court but was repelled with the finding that the land which "had been declared" as a building site could not at all have been ordered to be allotted as land. We may add that the requirement under section 2 (3) is only of "declaration". In the facts and circumstances of this case it is not possible to hold at this stage that the declaration made by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 24-2-1966 was in fact deficient in some factual aspect. The law required the Chief Settlement Commissioner to make only a declaration. If he also issued a subsequent Notification though it was not a requirement of law, it will not dilute the effect of the declaration made earlier, which it is admitted by the learned counsel need not have been made through a Notification. That being so the transfer in favour of the petitioner's predecessor-in- interest on 31st March, 1966, of the property in dispute as land after the afore discussed declaration, was without lawful authority. No justification has been made out for interference. This petition accordingly is dismissed.