Petitioner's Writ Petition No, 314-R of 1984 was dismissed by my order, dated 16-12-1984. Petitioner has now filed this application under Order XLVII, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Seeking review of the following?, observations made by me in para. 5 of the judgment which according' to him virtually amount to a finding of fact adverse to his interest:-- "This submission of the learned counsel is not borne out from the record. Impugned order shows that the main house, which was given No, S.31-R-152, consisted of a bungalow and some quarteRs, It further shows that the transfer of the main house did not include the names of the petitioner's predecessors in interest, who were transferred the portion bearing No, S-31-R152/B which consisted of house only. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel. In view of what has been stated in the impugned order, does not, prima facie, appear to be correct. On the other hand, transfer document issued to Abdul Hamid, predecessor-in-interest of Samiullah respondent shows that the house in portion No, S-31-R-152/D was transferred to him along with a courtyard which, according to the learned counsel for Samiullah respondent, is the plot in dispute."
2. The aforementioned observation was made in the context of the position taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the plot in dispute, as such, was not shown to have been transferred to the petitioner as it was not specifically mentioned in the transfer document issued to his predecessors-in-interest but nonetheless as the main house was transferred to the petitioner's predecessors-in-interest, the plot in dispute being an open/vacant site automatically stood transferred to them as a part of the main house. In order to examine this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I had referred to the impugned order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated 7-7-1984 and observe that according to this order, the main house which was given No, S.31.R.152 and which consisted of a bungalow and some quarters was transferred to persons other than the petitioner's predecessors-in interest. I, therefore, concluded, with particular reference to the impugned order that "thus, the contention of the learned counsel, in view of what has been stated in the impugned order, does not, prim facie, appear to be correct." It may be pertinently pointed out that it was not even the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that what was described by the Chief Settlement Commissioner as the main house was transferred to the petitioner's predecessors-in-interest. I this view of the matter, petitioner should have no grievance with m observations sought to be reviewed.
Petitioner who has appeared in person in this petition submits that the plot in dispute according to the municipal plan was a part the portion Transferred to him. I am afraid, I cannot go into this question in the present proceedings. In fact, even in my order passed in the writ petition, I had taken the view that the dispute relating t the transfer of the plot in dispute, after the issuance of P.T.D. And particularly after the repeal of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws could not be gone into and determined by the Settlement Authorities and expressed the view that the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner rightly held that after the issuance of P.T.Ds. To the parties and particularly after the repeal of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws, he had no jurisdiction to interfere in_ the matter. Petitioner has also made a grievance that certain documents were not taken into consideration while making the observations under review. In the view of the matter that I had taken, it was not necessary to refer to those documents which were not even considered by the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner and rightly so because as observed above, he had rightly held that he had no jurisdiction to reopen the matter after the issuance of P.T.Ds.
' As regards the observation about the transfer document issued to Abdul Hamid, predecessor-in- interest of Sami Ullah respondent, no finding can be spelt out therefrom that the plot in dispute was a part of the property transferred to him. I had only referred to the contention of the learned counsel for Sami Ullah respondent and gave no finding of my own.
' In view of what has been said above, this petition (R.A. 48 of 1984) has no merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Petitioner may, however, if so advised, seek his remedies, if any available to him for redress of his alleged grievance.
3. During the pendency of the review petition, petitioner has made C.M. Application No, 3267 of 1984 seeking a clarification that the finding of the learned Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner made in his impugned order, dated 7-7-1984 to the effect that "the original site plan was not available on the file but an attested copy was on record. The attestation was done under the signatures of Deputy Settlement Commissioner which did not appear to be genuine" is intact.
No such clarification is called for because I have not said anything in my order passed in the writ petition which has the effect of displacing the aforesaid finding of the learned Member, Board of Revenue. C.M.
' Application (No, 3267 of 1984) is, therefore, misconceived and the same is dismissed.