' This petition under Article 199 of the Constituttion of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, was filed to call in of the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner, Sialkot, dated 28-6-1976, whereby he allowed the revision petition filed by respondent No, 3 and set aside the orders of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, dated 23-8-1966 and 27-9-1969.
2. Facts giving rise to this petition, briefly stated, are that the property bearing No, 21/600 was a Bus-stand under the use of Gujrat Punjab Bus Service Limited. Its upper portion, bearing Property No,21/777, was in possession of Eastern Federal Insurance Company. On the ground floor, there was also a shop situated on Ram Tulai Road, which was in possession of one Imam Din, a local. Shop bearing Property No, 21/776 was puchased by Sh. Anwar Ali, present petitioner, and Property bearing No, 21/777 was transferred to him through ear-marking Bus-stand was purchased in auction by one Mst. Rehmat Bibi but she could not made the payment of the auction price with the result that her auction was cancelled. It thus became an available property.
3. In pursuance of a direction of the Settlement Commissioner, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by order, dated 23-8-1966 (Annexure 'B') demarcated the properties transferred to the petitioner. In that demarcation, a portion of the property in possession of Gujrat Punjab Service Limited was shown as part of the properties transferred to the petitioner. By virtue of that order, inner doors of bath-room, drivers room, one full garage and the entry gate of the buses from Ram Tulai Road were demarcated in favour of the petitioner. Mushtaq Hussain, respondent No, 3, preferred an appeal (Annexure 'C') against the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner which was dismissed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner by his order, dated 14-12-1967, on the short ground that the respondent has only filed L.S. Form which is pending with the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and he has not so far been transferred Property No, 21/600 or for that matter any other property. Appeal was thus dismissed as premature.
' Thereafter, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by his order, dated 26-3-1968 (Annexure 'E') transferred the bus-stand bearing Property No, 21/600 to respondent No,
3. This transfer was challenged by the petitioner through an appeal which was allowed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner by his order, dated 26-7-1968, on the short ground that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was not competent to transfer the said property as only an Additional Settlement Commissioner was competent to transfer the available property under Settlement Scheme No, VII.
While accepting the appeal of the petitioner, learned Additional Settlement Commissioner remanded the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner with a direction that he shall first determine the nature and extent of the property and send his proposal to the Additional Settlement Commissioner for his final order. It appears that respondent No, 3 has also filed an appeal regarding the demarcation of the property transferred to the parties and that appeal was also decided by the Additional Settlement Commissioner by an order, dated 26-7-1968 (Annexure 'G') holding that since the very transfer in favour of the respondent has been set aside, the appeal asking for the demarcation of the properties transferred to the parties had become infructuous.
4. After the remand by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Deputy Settlement Commissioner submitted his report on 4-3-1969 which was approved by the Additional Settlement Commissioner and Property No, 21/600 was transferred to respondent No, 3 by order, dated 6-6-1969. Thereafter, on an application made by respondent No, 3 seeking the demarcation of the property transferred to him, Mr. Rahim Bakhsh Paracha, D.S.C. Passed an order, dated 27-9-1969 (Annexure 'G') stating that "during my spot inspection I noticed that some part of the property which is in regular possession of the Gujrat Punjab Bus Service, has already been demarcated to Sh. Anwar Ali under Property No, 21/776-777 by the then D.S.C., vide his order, dated 23-8-1966 and the rest of the portion was assigned No, 21/600, therefore, the contention of Mian Mushtaq Hussain that whole of the premises occupied by the Gujrat Punjab Bus Ltd. Should be demarcated as Property No, 21/600 is not acceptable". Mr. Paracha, learned D.S.C., however, pointed out in his order that the "learned D.S.C. In his decision, dated 23-8-1966 had referred a line sketch (Exh. P.B.) but the line sketch available in the file and marked (Exh. P.B.) is doubtful because the words "A.B.C.D" noted in red ink in the red line defining portion "A.B.C.D" have been written by erasing the original entries." With these findings/observations Mr. Paracha D.S.C. Held that "portion occupied by Gujrat Punjab Bus Ltd.
Minus the portion already demarcated as 21/776-777 (which also includes the Drivers room and water room and the entrance to the Adda from Ram Tulai Road), is considered as 21/600, Sialkot, which stands transferred to Mian Mushtaq Hussain." This order was not passed in the presence of respondent No, 3 and it was, therefore, directed that he be informed.
5. Respondent filed three appeals one against the order of the D.S.C., dated 25-3-1970 whereby the evaluation price of Property No, 21/600 was enhanced, and two other appeals against the orders of demarcation, dated 23-8-1966 and 27-9-1969. Appeal filed regarding the evaluation price wa.-: allowed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner by order, dated 28-6-1976. Learned officer also accepted other appeals (described as revision petitions) by a separate order, dated 28-6-1976.
Learned Additional Settlement Commissioner took note of the fact that it was noticed by Mr. Paracha D.S.C. That the line sketch (Exh. P.B.) prepared by the earlier D.S.C. Was doubtful "because the words "A.B.C.D." noted in red ink and the red line defining portion "A.B.C.D" have been written by erasing the original entries". Learned Additional Settlement Commissioner further observed that Sh.
Anwar All petitioner was only entitled to the transfer of property which he purchased through auction and earmarking and he could not be given any portion of Property bearing No, 21/600 which was in possession of Gujrat Punjab Bus Service Ltd. Since 1940. Learned officer referred to an auction-list which indicated that Property No, 21/776 was a shop situate on Ram Tulai Road, its door opening towards Ram Tulai Road and was in possession of one Imam Din, a local. Similarly, it was observed that Property No, 21/777 in the upper portion was in possession of the Eastern Federal Insurance Company. It was, therefore, held that "there was no occasion for the Department to demarcate property transferred to respondent No, 1 because Property No, 776 was simply small shop having its door on Ram Tulai Road and Property No, 21/777 was the whole first floor and the staircase leading to the upper portion from Ram Tulai Road".
' Learned Additional Settlement Commissioner further held with reference to the site-plan available on the file that "a portion of Property No, 21/600 has wrongly been included in Property Nos. 21/776 and 21/777. Property No, 21/776 has no concern whatsoever with Property No, 21/600". Learned Additional Settlement Commissioner also took note of his predecessor's order, dated 6-6-1969 transferring Property No, 21/600 specifically clarifying that property which was in possession of Gujrat Punjab Bus Service Ltd., was transferred to the respondent. On these premises, learned Additional Settlement Commissioner came to the conclusion that demarcation of any portion of Property No, 21/600 as part of properties Nos. 21/776 and 21/777 "is prima facie illegal and is not in consonance to the facts on record." Thus, the orders of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, dated 23-8-1966 and 27-9-1969 were set aside and it was held that "full Property No, 21/600 stands transferred to Mian Mushtaq Hussain, which is in actual possession of Gujrat Punjab Bus Service Limited, Sialkot and Property No, 21/776 is a shop situate on Ram Tulai Road and 21/777 is the first floor situate upon Property No, 21/600 alongwith its stairs leading to it shall stand transferred to the respondent".
6. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition submitted in the first instance that the appeals/revisions filed by respondent No, 3 were dismissed in default by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 28-8-1973 but the same were subsequently decided on merits without setting aside/recalling the order of dismissal in default. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent pointed out that this objection was not raised by the petitioner before the Additional Settlement Commissioner when he proceeded to decide the appeals/revisions on merits. Ch. Ghulam Sarwar, Advocate, who also represents respondent No, 3 and who was his counsel before the Additional Settlement Commissioner made a statement at the Bar that the order of dismissal in default was, in fact, set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to controvert this factual statement of Ch. Ghulam Sarwar, Advocate. Thus, the submission made by the learned counsel does not merit any serious consideration.
7. It was next submitted by the learned counsel that by order, dated 23-8-1966, D.S.C. Had held that the portion in dispute viz. The drivers room, the water room and the entrance to Adda from Ram Tulai Road was part of properties transferred to the petitioner. That being so, Property No, 21/600 which was available and was transferred to respondent No, 3 consisted of bus-stand minus the aforementioned portion demarcated/transferred to the petitioner. Precise submission of the learned counsel was that the portion in dispute aforementioned having already been demaracted to the petitioner was not available for disposal under Settlement Scheme No, VIII and, as such, it could not be transferred to respondent No,
3. This aspect of the case has been duly taken note of by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner and he observed in his impugned order that his predecessor by order, dated 6-6-1969 had transferred Property No, 21/600 to respondent No, 3 specifically clarifying that the property which was in possession of Gujrat Punjab Bus Service Limited be transferred to respondent No, 3 and while making this transfer, he had obviously taken into consideration the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, dated 23-8-1966 demarcating the portion in dispute to the petitioner. Reasoning of the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner was that the order of his predecessor transferring Property No, 21/600 to respondent No, 3 clarifying the property which was being transferred to him superseded the order of the D.S.C. Even otherwise, respondent No, 3 was not a party to the demarcation made by the learned D.S.C., vide order, dated 23-8-1966. In fact, he had been constantly agitating against the demarcation of the portion in dispute in favour of the petitioner. The order of D.S.C. Dated 23-8- 1966 was, therefore, not binding on the petitioner and, in any case, it was subject to appeal or revision and the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner was fully competent to interfere with it and set it aside.
' It may be noted that the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner in setting aside the demarcation made by the D.S.C. Took into consideration the observation of Mr. Rahim Bakhsh Paracha D.S.C. Recorded in his order, dated 27-9-1969 that the line sketch (Exh. P.B.) referred to in the earlier order of the D.S.C., dated 23-8-1966 was tampered with. This fact had rendered the stand of the petitioner doubtful. Not only this, the finding of the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner that only a shop on the ground floor bearing No, 21/776 situate on Ram Tulai Road and the upper portion bearing No, 21/777 which was in possession of Eastern Federal Insurance Company were transferred to the petitioner is supported by the material available on the record.
Learned Additional Settlement Commissioner, therefore, rightly held that there was no occasion for the D.S.C. To demarcate any other property in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relied upon the demarcation made by the D.S.C., vide order, dated 23-8-1966. Tie, however, could not dispute the finding of the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner that what was initially transferred to the petitioner was a shop on the ground floor bearing Property No, 21/776 and the upper portion No, 21/777 which was in possession of Eastern Federal Insurance Company. Thus, the impugned order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner setting aside the demarcation made by the D.S.C. Proceeded on correct premises and in any case, based as it is on the reasonable inference drawn from the material available on the record, it cannot be said to suffer from any legal infirmity muchless any jurisdictional defect. To may mind, the impugned order of the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner is just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the case. It, therefore, does not call for any interference in the constitutional jursidiction of this Court.
8. It was lastly sought to be argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No, 3 being a local had no locus standi to the transfer of Property No, 21/600. He submitted that the petitioner had raised the question of non-clearance of dues by respondent No, 3 before the Additional Settlement Commissioner but he did not consider this. Petitioner did not challenge the transfer of Property No, 21/600 to respondent No, 3 in any appeal or revision and he cannot be allowed to agitate against the transfer in favour of respondent No, 3 in the present writ petition which was directed against the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner relating to the demarcation of the properties transferred to the parties.
9. Upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned order of the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner is unexceptionable. This petition is without any substance and the same is accordingly dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.