1. ' The petitioner is a' transferee of tenement No. C-41 of Property No. R.C. 5/99, N-A-181, Karachi. This property consists of a compound with various tenements which have separately been transferred to the transferees, on the basis of their possession. A joint site plan was also prepared and verified by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 4-6-1971 against which many transferees of various tenements agitated before the Additional Settlement Commissioner requesting him to cancel the joint site plan mainly on the ground that it was prepared on misrepresentation of some transferees who have obtained excess area. It seems that this application was marked to Deputy Settlement Commissioner, who deputed a draftsman alongwith Settlement Inspector to inspect the site for ascertaining the correct position on the spot. According to their report some discrepancy was found in certain tenements but the Deputy Settlement Commissioner having no jurisdiction to amend the joint site plan forwarded the matter to the Additional Settlement Commissioner to deckle the matter after hearing the parties. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner summoned the parties and after hearing them came to the conclusion that most of the transferees wanted their site plans to be verified individually. The learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner by his order, dated 24-2-1972 allowed the transferees to file site plan separately. On 26-6-1976 the petitioner presented a site plan before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for verification who by his order, dated 31-10-1977 on the basis of joint site plan, dated 4-7-1971 allowed the petitioner to retain an area of 6' x 21' alongwith his tenement bearing No. G/4. The respondent No. 2 challenged this order in Revision before the respondent No. 1 who by the impugned it holding that the disputed possession of the land measuring 6' x 21' is a passage as well as a place for drying clothes by all the residents of this compound, and, therefore, it should remain as such. The effect of this order was that this land measuring 6' x 21' was excluded from the property claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner has, therefore, challenged this order in this petition.
2. ' Mr. Husnain the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that after the. Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, the respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to decide the matter. The main dispute between the parties was that the petitioner was claiming the land measuring 6' x 21' as a part and parcel of G-41 which has been transferred to him. According to him this was the property trnasferred to him as shown in the joint site plan. However, other transferees of various tenements in the same compound objected to it, and therefore, agitated the matter before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for reverification of joint site plan but instead of reverification the Deputy Settlement Commissioner ordered that the party should file plan individually for verification. This procedure, if followed, would have been for the demarcation of property individually, and also to determine whether the disputed land forms part of the petitioner's property G-41. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner granted this application on 31-10-1977 which was set aside on 31-1-1978. Both the orders determined the right of the petitioner in respect of the property. It was not only a claim by the petitioner for demarcation of property, but substantially for inclusion of certain portion of land which is claimed by other transferees as a common open space for common use. Therefore, it was substantive right of the rival parties which is to be determined in the proceedings before the Settlement Authorities.
3. ' On 31-1-1978 and 31-10-1977 when the respondent No. 1 and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner passed the order respectively, they had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on such disputes. In my opinion both the orders were passed without lawful authority. In these circumstances, I allow the petition, and declare that the order passed by the respondent No. 1 on 31-1-1978 is without lawful authority. It is also declared that the order passed by the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 31-10-1977 is also without jurisdiction. Both the orders are of no legal effect. The parties if they desire to get their rights to the disputed property determined may approach the civil Court ES provided by law.
4. Writ issued.