1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-In this petition, the dispute relates to the house bearing No. P-82, Block No. 1, Tandlianwala, in the district of Lyallpur, which was transferred to the respondent, Abdul Ghafoor, under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958).
2. As the value of the house was below Rs. 10,000, and the petitioner, who was a local, was in occupation of a portion of it, he submitted an L. H. Form for its transfer, which was dismissed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, on the ground that he had not filed any declaration of eligibility, and had also failed to clear the arrears of rent. On the 27th of January 1960, the Deputy Settle-- ment Commissioner ordered the inclusion of the house in the auction pool. The petitioner filed an objection petition against it, but it was not pursued as the house had already been excluded from the auction list. Nonetheless, it appears that the house was put to auction on the 15th of October 1960, and purchased by the respondent, Abdul Ghafoor, for Rs. 24,000. The petitioner preferred a time-barred appeal against the order rejecting his claim form, alleging that he was the allottee in possession of the house since 1947, and, as such, was entitled to its transfer. The Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Judicial) dismissed the appeal, holding that it was time-barred. He further held that the house was not in the undisputed possession of the petitioner.
3. The petitioner then filed a revision petition to the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, which was dismissed in limine on the 29th of March 1963. He then filed a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court invited the comments of the department on the writ petition, and then dismissed it. No proof was adduced by the petitioner that he was an allottee of the house in question. On the contrary, the facts reveal that on the 6th of February 1950, the Deputy Rehabilitation Officer, Gojra, asked for the petitioner's ejectment from the house in order to accommodate occupants of Krishana Ghee Grading Station. The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice on the 18th of February 1960, by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner as to why he should not be ejected. The petitioner appeared before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, who decided that he should be ejected. The petitioner did not challenge this order before the higher authorities. He then filed a miscellaneous application before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for review of his previous order, who rejected the application. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lyallpur, which was also dismissed. The learned Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, however, observed that if the petitioner was in continuous possession of the house in dispute since 1947, as alleged by him, his claim to retain it would be superior to others in view of the Government's direction con--tained in para. 2(i)(c) of Memo. No. 263-Reh.-III-53/3312 dated the 30/31st of January 1953. In deference to these observa--tions, the Deputy Rehabilitation Officer recommended the case of the petitioner for transfer of the house to him, which, however, was not accepted by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner However, he referred the matter to the Rehabilitation Commissioner for final orders, and a notice was issued to the petitions to appear before him on the 28th of November 1953, but then is no clue to the order finally passed by the Rehabilitation Commissioner, as the relevant file was reported to be missing The petitioner contended that the final order of the Rehabilitation Commissioner was in his favour by which all the ejectment proceedings had been dropped against him. The department it its report submitted to the High Court repudiated this contention The petitioner failed to produce a copy of the order of the Rehabilitation Commissioner presumably passed in his favour, and it is impossible to hold with him that any such orders were in fact made. It was pointed out in the judgment of the learned Judges of the High Court that the petitioner had been served with a notice for ejectment from the house in question on several occasions and his plea that finally the proceedings for ejectment were dropped against him by the Rehabilitation Commissioner was raised for the first time in the Letters Patent appeal, which was rightly not entertained in the absence of any proof that the Rehabilitation Commissioner had in fact dropped the proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner did not file any rejoinder in the High Court against the report submitted by the department to assert his contention, as agitated by him in the Letters Patent appeal that the ejectment proceedings had been finally dropped against him by the Rehabilitation Commissioner on the 28th of November 1953. On the contrary, it was admitted by the learned counsel appearing for him in the High Court on the 8th of April 1969, that the petitioner was under orders of ejectment by the Rehabilitation Department. Since the petitioner was not in an undisputed possession of the property, he could not derive any benefit as a local for the transfer of this property under Notification dated the 13th of October 1959. The Settlement authorities have held on a point of fact that the petitioner was not in an undisputed possession of the property, and the High Court having armed the same, we do not see any ground for interference to give relief to the petitioner. This petition is dismissed.