' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, is directed against the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, dated 11-1-1974 whereby petitioner's revision petition was dismissed and the order of the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Central) III, Lahore, dated 22-8-1968 was maintained.
2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that Property No. S-1041, which was in occupation of Sharaf-ud-Din petitioner, Abdul Aziz and Jamal Din was transferred to the petitioner on his form C.H. vide Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order, dated 17-1-1960 while Property No. S-1054, Gumti Bazar, Lahore stood transferred as a shop to Ghulam Muhammad respondent No. 3 vide P.T.O. No. 4770, dated 19-10-1959.
3. Appendix for Rs.23,440 as transfer price of Property No. C-1041 was issued to the petitioner on 4- 2-1960. After adjusting Rs.2,016 from the Compensation Book, Appendix XI for the balance amount of Rs.21,424 was issued to the petitioner on the same date requiring him to pay the amount in 36 monthly instalments. On 13-5-1960 petitioner made an application stating therein that according to the record of Lahore Municipal Corporation Property No. C-1054 had no existence and that the shop bearing No. C-1054 transferred to respondent No.3 was part of Property No. C-1041 and prayed that the value of the said shop be deducted from the transfer price of Property No. C-1041. Deputy Settlement Commissioner by his order, dated 4-11-1960 asked the petitioner to furnish proof in support of his contention. Instead of proving his case before the D.S.C., petitioner went in appeal before the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner who by order, dated 12-3-1962 directed him to seek remedy before D.S.C. The matter came up before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, who by his order, dated 16-4-1963 held that the shop transferred to respondent No. 3 was part of Property No. C-1041 and, therefore, assessed the value of the shop at Rs.9,600 and that the house at Rs.2,400 (sic). Respondent No.3 challenged this order in an appeal which was accepted by the Additional Settlement Commissioner who by his order, dated 25-1-1964 remanded the chse to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for fresh decision with the following observation:- "This case requires further enquiries whether the shop and the house bear separate property numbers or the same property number."
4. After the remand, Deputy Settlement Commissioner by his order, dated 30-6-1964 held that "these two properties are quite distinct ones with separate assessments and that of property bearing No. C-1041 is to be assessed at the rate of Rs.360". Petitioner felt aggrieved with this order and preferred an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Judicial), who by his order, dated 19-10-1964 set aside the D.S.C's. order, dated 30-6-1964 and remanded the case for fresh decision with the observation "that this case requires further enquiries on the point whether the house and the shop are different properties having different assessments".
5. Deputy Settlement Commissioner, who took up the matter on remand visited the properties in the presence of both the parties, consulted the record of the Excise and Taxation Department as also of Lahore Municipal Corporation for the year 1946-47, heard the parties and found that Property No. C-1054 is not available in the Assessment Register of Lahore Municipal Corporation for the year 1946-47, although it is entered in the record of Excise and Taxation Department as a shop, containing one storey and situated in an area of two Marlas owned by Gopel Das and assessed to annual tax of Rs.300.
' As regards Property No. C-1041, learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner found that as per the register of Excise and Taxation Department, it was "a residential house situated on an area of two Marlas owned by Ram Ditta son of Hari Krishan. According to the entries in this register this property consists of two storeys, containing three rooms and has been assessed to annual tax of Rs.586 whereas Lahore Municipal Corporation has assessed it to annual tax of Rs.360." It was further found by the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner that "Property No. C-1041 is a residential house and is situated in the lane whereas S-1054 is a shop and situated in the main Bazar. This shop is flanked on one side by Shop No. 1053 and on the other side by Shop No. C-1055... The construction also shows that Property No.S-1041 and C-1054 are two independent and separate properties".
6. With the aforementioned findings, learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner by his order, dated 22-8-1968 held that "Property No. C-1041 and Property No. C-1054 are two different properties owned by two different evacuee owners and separately assessed to tax by the Excise and Taxation Department". It was however, observed that the assessment of Property No. C-1041 was disproportionately high as compared with the rent of other properties of the same nature in that locality but the petitioner instead of applying for reduction in the rent of the property transferred to him "has wrongly claimed Property No. C-1054 as part of Property No. C-1041".
7. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in an appeal which was converted into a revision petition, heard and disposed of as such by Mr. Muhammad Azam, Additional Settlement Commissioner by his order, dated 11-1-1974. Learned Additional Settlement Commissioner dismissed the revision petition on the ground of limitation holding that the appeal "which was converted into revision" against the order of D.S.C., dated 22-8-1968 was filed after the expiry of limitation period of 15 days. On merits it was held by the learned Additidnal Settlement Commissioner that after examining the entire record, he saw no justification to interfere with the order of the learned D.S.C. whereby two properties viz. C-1041 and C-1054 were held to be separate and independent.
8. This petition was admitted to regular hearing to consider as to whether Mr. Muhammad Azam who dismissed the petitioner's revision petition was appointed as Settlement Commissioner and thus, empowered to hear the revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that in view of the notification, dated 14-3-1973 placed on record by the respondents, Mr. Muhammad Azam was competent to hear and dispose of petitioner's revision petition. He, therefore, did not press the point regarding competence of the Officer.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents Nos. 3 and 4 raised a preliminary objection that the impugned order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dismissing the petitioner's appeal/ revision on the ground of limitation was not open to challenge in writ jurisdiction because the matter of condonation of delay was in the discretion of the concerned authority. According to learned counsel, learned Additional Settlement Commissioner in refusing to condone the delay exercised his discretion lawfully and properly. Learned counsel for the petitioner countered this objection by submitting that respondents have not taken it in the written statement and as such they cannot be allowed to raise it during the course of arguments. Objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is purely on a legal plane. Petitioner's appeal (later converted into revision) was admittedly filed beyond the limitation period. Learned Additional Settlement Commissioner dismissed it as time-barred by refusing to condone the delay with the observation that "the appeal was filed on 3-12-1968 after a period of 104 days instead of 15 days.
Although no separate application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay has been filed by Sharaf Din yet explanation in the memorandum of appeal has been given that the order was not announced in the presence of the petitioner. As is apparent from the impugned order, it was announced in the presence of the parties and there is no evidence on record to prove it otherwise. The petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay. I am, therefore, of the view that the appeal now converted into revision is hit by the limitation".
' Matter of condonation of delay rests in the discretion of the authorities seized by the matter and the exercise of the discretion unless perverse and arbitrary is not open to interference in Consti - tutional jurisdiction of this Court. Reference in this behalf may be made to Syed Nazar Ali v. Syed Ibne Ali and others 1981 SC MR 239. In the present case, learned Additional Settlement Commissioner refused to condone the delay firstly, for the reason that petitioner had not made any application under section 5 of the Limitation Act and secondly, because the explanation given by the petitioner was found to be untenable on the record. That being so, learned Additional Settlement Commissioner exercised his discretionary powers in a lawful and reasonable manner and the same is, therefore, not open to interference in Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, the impugned order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dismissing the petitioner's revision petition as time-barred is not open to challenge in writ jurisdiction.
10. As regards the findings of the learned Settlement Authorities that the Property No. C-1041 and Property No. C-1054 were two different properties, learned counsel for the petition submitted that this finding was given without considering the material documents available on the record.
Learned counsel pointed out that three documents, copies of which, are Annexures 'E/1', 'F' and 'G' on the present record have not been considered by the Settlement Authorities. Annexure 'E/1' is a copy of assessm ent of the Municipal Corporation for the year ending 1951 in respect of Property No. C-1054. This document contains an entry "Not at site also not in T.S.I." Annexure 'F' which appears to be a copy of Excise and Taxation record bears a note "C-1054 does not exist in the property Taxation record of 1946-47". Annexure 'G' is certified copy of P.A. List of Lahore Municipal Corporation for the year 1950 in respect of Property No. C-1041. This document shows that the said property was owned by Ram Ditta and it consisted of one shop and a residential portion. Argument of the learned counsel was that property bearing No. C-1054 was never in existence as shown by the documents referred to above. I find no force in this argument. Perusal of the order of Deputy Settlement Commissioner, dated 22-8-1968 shows that he was cognizant of the fact that "Property No. C-1054 is not borne out by the assessment register of Lahore Municipal Corporation for the year 1946-47". He, however, found that Property No. C-1054 was recorded in the register of Excise and Taxation Department as a Shop owned by Gopal Das and was assessed to an annual tax of Rs.300.
Learned Officer visited the spot and noticed that Property No. C-1041 was a residential house situated in the lane whereas Property No. C-1054 was a Shop which was situated in the main Bazar.
He further found that Shop No. C-1054 was flanked on one side by Shop No. C-1054 and on the other side by Shop No. C-1055. He, therefore, came to the conclusion that Properties Nos. C-1041 and C-1054 were two different properties owned by two different evacuee owners and separately assessed to tax by the Excise and taxation Department. This finding of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was affirmed by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner in his impugned order. Learned Additional Settlement Commissioner while dismissing the petitioner's appeal/revision on merits took into consideration the fact that orders for the transfer of Property Nos. C-1041 and C-1054 were separately passed and that the petitioner filed no appeal or revision against the transfer of Property No. C-1054 in favour of Ghulam Muhammad respondent No.
3. Learned Additional Settlement Commissioner was also influenced by the fact that P.T.D. had also been issued to respondent No.3 in respect of Shop No. C-1054 and "the department has become functus officio and the matter cannot be re-opened on the point of transfer or entitlement".
Attention of the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner was also drawn to the fact that in Form C.H. submitted by Sharaf Din for the transfer of Property No. C-1041 as also in the statements of the petitioner and other occupants of the said property and in the orders of Deputy Settlement Commissioner, dated 17-1-1960 and 4-11-1960, name of Ghulam Muhammad respondent No.3 was not mentioned as an occupant of any portion of Property No. C-1041. Similarly, it was pointed out to the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner that the name of Ghulam Muhammad respondent No. 3 did not figure in the assessment record of Municipal Corporation or of the Excise and Taxation record pertaining to Property No. C-1041. Order of Rehabilitation Commissioner, dated 30-5-1955, rent receipts Exhs.R.711 to 65, electricity bill and findings of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in orders, dated 22-8-1968 and 30-6-1964 showing the independent existence of Property No. C-1054 were also brought to the notice of the Additional Settlement Commissioner.
After taking into consideration all this material, learned Additional Settlement Commissioner held that he saw no justification to interfere with the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner regarding the separate and independent existence of Property No. C-1054.
11. The aforementioned discussion shows that Settlement Authorities after careful and thorough appraisal of all the relevant material brought on the record came to the conclusion that Property No. C-1041 and Property No. C-1054 were two different properties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the finding recorded by the Settlement Authorities suffers from any legal flaw or infirmity. Even otherwise, question agitated in the writ petition being one of fact stood concluded by concurrent findings of the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the Additional Settlement Commissioner. Law is very well-settled that concurrent findings on a question of fact recorded by a Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction cannot be disturbed in writ jursidiction unless they are based on no evidence. Reference in this behalf may be made to Muhammad Aslam Khan v. Atta Muhammad and 8 others 1969 SCMR 16. It is not the case of the petitioner that the findings of the learned Settlement Authorities are based on no evidence. In fact, in view of the bulk of evidence considered by the Settlement Authorities, such a contention cannot be raised. Thus, the findings of the learned Settlement authorities are immune from scrutiny in Consti tutional jurisdiction of this Court.
12. In view of what has been said above, this petition has no merit and the same is dismissed with costs.
Writ refused.