1. ' Ghulam Ali Butt and his son Imdad All residents of Landa Bazar, Lahore filed this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, praying that order of respondent No. 4 dated 17-6-1976 passed in the suo motu jurisdiction be declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. ' Both the petitioners are admittedly locals. Ghulam Ali Butt was 5residing in a room in Property No. SE-II-2-S-17, Landa Bazar, Lahore, which according to the petitioners is Katri/Ihata having a courtyard. This belonged to L. Gobind Ram. Gobind Ram died before partition. The property was partitioned between the heirs. Their portions were given separate numbers.
3. ' It is alleged by the petitioners that although the property referred to above was sub-divided into various units but after partition, Rehabilitation Authorities treated the same as one unit bearing No. SE-II-2-S-17. A number of persons was residing in different portions of this property.
4. ' Ghulam Ali claimed to be in possession of one room of this property as old tenant. He occupied another room adjoining the room already in possession after partition.
5. ' He further claimed to have constructed a room in a portion of courtyard. Petitioner No. 2 alongwith his father was residing in the aforesaid two rooms of property in question.
6. ' After partition, Ghulam Ali applied for transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VI.
7. ' Settlement Department's case is different. They say that plot measuring 4 Marais and 198 Sq.Ft. was transferred to Ghulam Ali, on 12-6-1965, for a consideration of Rs. 14,640. This amount was subsequently reduced by 10%. The plot was resumed on 30-10-1968 because of default in payment of the transfer price. Ghulam Ali felt aggrieved. He gave an application for deletion of the plot from the auction list.
8. Another plot measuring 2 Marlas and 78 Sq.Ft., which was also in possession of Ghulam All was put to auction. The Department claimed that the second plot measuring 2 Marlas and 78 Sq.Ft. was neither transferred to Ghulam Ali nor did he ever applied for that.
9. ' In the year 1970, his son Imdad All came into the picture. He filed L.H. Form for transfer of Property No. SE-II-2-S-17.
10. ' On 5-1-1971, the D.S.C. transferred two rooms measuring Ft. x 70 Ft. against the LH Form to Imdad Ali but did not mention the area of the passage. The D.S.C. further observed that the remainin area of open space shall be disposed of by open auction. However, h did not mention the area of the remaining plot.
11. ' Ghulam Ali's appeal for resumption of the transfer of plot wa pending. He claimed a refund of Rs.
12. 13,176 from the transfer price o the ground that the property transferred to him was not a plot but house. The refund voucher was prepared. The case was transferred t Accounts ection. The matter was to be examined and report to b submitted as to whether the property was transferred as a plot t Ghulam Ali or a house to his son Imdad Ali.
13. ' The case was re-examined. The D.S.C.(Plots) went to the spo and made enquiry. He reported that Ghulam Ali was in possession of plot. His son Imdad Ali was not in possession of any room in this property in his own capacity. The rooms transferred to Imdad Ali o L.H. Form were constructed on the transferred plot of Ghulam Ali The D.S.C. found no other room except those constructed on the plot of his father.
14. ' The Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Plots) also noticed other things the important being that he was of the opinion that P.T.D. was obtained by Imdad Ali through fraud, misrepresentation and concealing the facts. The same required cancellation.
15. ' The D.S.C., therefore, referred the case to the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner requesting him thereby to take up the matter suo motu. This is how the impugned order was passed, which has been challenged in this petition.
16. ' Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended tha the impugned order was without jurisdiction. P.T.D. having been issued the Settlement Authorities had become functus officio.
17. ' It was further submitted that the matter had been decided u. to the level of revision. The impugned order was contrary to law.
18. ' On behalf of respondents a preliminary objection was raised which was that this petition was not maintainable because petitioner No. applied under Residuary Scheme. The aggrieved party had an alternate remedy.
19. ' It was further submitted that the transfer of petitioner No. was never cancelled. He as such had no locus standi.
20. ' Last of all it was argued that Imdad Ali's transfer was found t be the result of fraud and misrepresentation as such it had not becom final.
21. ' I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for th parties.
22. ' The D.S.C. himself went to the spot. Thereafter, he reporte that Imdad All had no claim for transfer of any property. The P.T.D obtained by him was through fraud. These findings had been arrive at after holding a proper enquiry.
23. ' The impugned order was passed in the suo motu jurisdiction of the Settlement Commissioner. The Settlement Commissioner was vested with such jurisdiction. He did not commit any irregularity in exercising this jurisdiction as the impugned order suffers from no error of law.
24. ' I do not think that it calls for interference. Dismissed. No order as to costs.