M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.-- These three appeals, by leave of the Court, relate to the transfer of a to- storeyed evacuee composite property bearing No. 7/19-20, situate in Mandi Bahauddin, District Gujrat. It has 15 large rooms, of which 4 on the front side were used as shops. Three of the shops, one each, have been in the possession of Ibrahim, Bashir and Sardar Ali, respondents, while the rest of the property was in the possession of Jango and Chhota, predecessors-in---interest of the present appellants. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, treating the whole property to be a single unit transferred the same in favour of Jango and Chhota under P.T.O., dated 26-11-1959. The respondents agitated, and in the result of the order, dated 25-1-1960 passed by the Settlement Commissioner in revision, the three shops were transferred to the respondents. A second revision filled by Jango and Chhota was dismissed on 17-4-1960 by Syed Hashim Raza, the then Chief Settlement Commissioner. They then filed Writ Petition No. 326/11 of 1960 but upon a statement made on 1-10-1960 by Mr. Ahsan-ud-Din who had succeeded as Chief Settlement Commissioner, that he would review his predecessor's order, dated 17-4-1960, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 21-11.-1960. Mr. Ahsan-ud-Din summoned and heard the parties but as he had no the to deal with the matter himself, he, on 5-5-1962, transferred the case under section 32-A of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act to Ch. Sultan Muhammad, Settlement Commissioner. The matter ultimately 'was dealt with by Rana Aftab Ahmad Khan, Settlement Commissioner. He rejected the plea that power of review was not available on account of deletion of the provision of section 21(1) of the Act by Ordinance II of 1962, dated 13-1-1962, because according to him the case was saved by-- section 7 which had been added by the amending Ordinance XIII of 1962, dated 17-3-1962. He rejected the case of the respondents on the ground that while Ibrahim and Bashir had filed forms on 22-12-1959, which was after the due date of 5-12-1959, Sardar Ali had not filed any form at all. There, thus, being no dispute left for division of the property, he accepted the second revision of Jango and Chhota and transferred the entire property in their favour, vide order, dated 20-11-1965. The respondents challenged the decision by filing separate writ petitions, namely, W.P. No. 1636/11 of 1965 by Muhammad Bashir, W.P. No. 1637/11 of 1965 by Sardar Ali and W.P. No. 1638/11 of 1965 by Ibrahim. The petitions were heard on 15-5-1973 and the judgment was reserved. But before the judgment could be announced, an application was moved under Order XXII, rule 4 (3), C.P.C. On 24-5-1973 by the special attorney for Jango and Chhota stating that as Jango and Chhota had died on 31-1-1970 and 9-7-1971, respectively, and their legal representatives had not been brought on record in the, the writ petitions stood abated and were liable to be dismissed as such. The respondents, thereupon, filed an application under Order XXII, rule 9, C.P.C. For setting aside the abatement and an application for condonation of the delay and impleading the legal representatives of the deceased. The learned Judge of the High Court after hearing the parties, by order, dated 18-6-1974, set aside the abatement and quashed the order of the Settlement Commissioner, Rana Aftab Ahmad Khan. He held that the record did not show want of diligence on the part of the respondents and that Rana Aftab Ahmad Khan had no jurisdiction to review the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Syed Hashim Raza. The legal representatives of Jango and Chhota then moved this Court and leave to appeal was granted to them on 6-3-1978 to consider whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the abatement and in holding that Rana Aftab Ahmad Khan had no jurisdiction to review the order of Syed Hashim Raza.
2. In support of the argument that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the abatement, it is submitted that both Jango and Chhota had been residing and had died in the disputed house and as such the respondent's assertion that they could not know of the deaths in the as the deceased had been working in East Pakistan and Karachi had no proper basis and that even when the fact had been disclosed in the application made on 24-5-1973, they had not filed the application for setting aside the abatement until 3-12-1973. The relevant death certificates furnished do not show that the deceased had died in the disputed house, though the same is recorded as the .Place of residence of Jango while the place of residence of Chhota is recorded as Ward No.5. There is no other material to support the assertion that they had died in the disputed premises. The High Court had also noted that even the attorney of Jango and Chhota had been unaware of their death until after the date of hearing of the writ petitions. The High Court also found the application under Order XXII, rule 9 had been-- made on receipt of notice of the application under Order XXII, rule 4(3) and without lack of diligence. The setting aside of abatement under Order XXII, rule 9(2), C.P.C. As in force at the relevant the, was within the discretion of the Court upon its satisfaction that there was sufficient cause for doing so. The learned Judge of the High Court has given reasons for the exercise of the discretion in favour o the respondents which cannot be said to be perverse or impossible. No ground is, therefore, made out for interference in this regard.
3.As for the second point, on which leave had been granted, relating to the jurisdiction of Rana Aftab Ahmad Khan to review the order of Syed Hashim Raza, we find that the Chief Settlement Commis--sioner may, under section 31(2), delegate all or any of his powers under the Act to any Settlement Commissioner by a notification issued in the official Gazette. Admittedly, no notification delegating the Chie Settlement Commissioner's power of review in favour of Rana Aftab Ahmad Khan had issued. In such situation, the Lahore High Court in Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Rafique PLD 1968 Lah. 263 had held and rightly so that in the absence of a Gazette Notification, review by a Settlement Commissioner in exercise of the powers of the Chief Settle--ment Commissioner delegated under section 31(2) was illegal. Learned counsel for the appellants concedes that he does not rely on the provision of section 31(2) and submits that it was in. Fact transfer of the case under section 32-A as appears from the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated 5-5-1962. But it has to be borne in mind that the transfer of a case under section 32-A would per se not invest the -Settlement Commissioner with a power not otherwise possessed by him. An express delegation of the power of review under section 21(1) had to be made. The majority view of this Court in Zainab Khatoon v . Ghulam Shabbir PLD 1965 SC 55 was that: "The revisional power and the power of review of his own order, conferred on the Chief Settlement Commissioner, are contained in to separate sections of the Act. Delegation of power under one section, in my judgment, cannot be construed to carry with it a delegated power under the other section also. A power of review is a creature of the statute and it cannot be said that a delegatee exercising revisional powers under subsection (2) of section 20 of the Act has inherent power to review orders passed in his capacity as a delegatee."
Moreover, under section 21(1), the Chief Settlement Commissioner ca review an order passed "by himself" or "by any of his Predecessors-in---Office". The order; dated 17-4-1960 reviewed by Rana Aftab Ahmad Khan cannot be said to have been passed either "by himself" or "by any of his Predecessors-in-Office". In respect of the corresponding provision in the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956, this Court had in Fazal Ahmad v. Ziaullah Khan PLD 1964 SC 293 held "The mere fact that the Additional Claims Commissioner was exercising one of the powers of a Claims Commissioner would not make him the holder of the office of a Claims Commissioner.
There is further difficulty in accepting the view that a Claims Commissioner would be successor- in-office of an Additional Claims Commissioner to whom powers of a Claims Commissioner had been delegated. "
It is thus clear that Rana Aftab Ahmad Khan was not possessed of the jurisdiction to review the order passed by Syed Hashim Raza as Chi ~'e Settlement Commissioner.
4. Even on merits, the rejection of the case of the respondents by Rana Aftab Ahmad Khan on the ground that they had not filed forms within the stipulated period of 5-12-1959 was not tenable in law in view of the rule laid down in Altaf Hussain v. Chief Settlement Commissioner P' L D 1965 SC 68.
5. There is, thus, no merit in these appeals which are hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.