' Through this constitutional petition, Abdur Rehman petitioner wants this Court to declare the order, dated 30-12-1972 of the Deputy Settlement & Rehabilitation Commissioner, Chunian and, dated 19-11-1973 of the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The dispute relates to the transfer of Khasra No,155/1 measuring 7 Kanals 3 Marlas. The petitioner's case is that he was allotted this Khasra number by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 17-7-1965 but inadvertently instead of Khasra No,155/1, the Khasra No,156/1 was written on the Khata. The petitioner has -been in the continuous possession of this Khasra since 1965. It so happened that on 30-11-1972, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Chunian allotted and confirmed this Khasra in the name of Muhammad Siddique respondent. On coming to know of the confirmation in favour of Muhammad Siddiq respondent No,3, the petitioner challenged the order, dated 30-11-1972 before the learned Settlement Commissioner, Lahore by filing revision which was dismissed in limine as time barred on 19-11-1973, hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the impugned order, dated 30-11- 1972 was passed without notice to the petitioner and that he filed a revision within time from the date of his knowledge and that the application moved by him for the condonation of delay was not attended to by the learned Settlement Commissioner. It may, be noted that the respondents have been ordered to be proceeded against ex parte.
4.
5.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with care. I find that the order impugned in revision before the learned Settlement Commissioner was passed at the back of the petitioner, that in para No,8 of the revision petition, it has been stated that the petitioner was not aware of the order as the same was passed in his absence with the counnivance of lower staff of the Settlement and Revenue Authdrities. The application for condonation of delay was also given. Despite this, the learned Settlement Commissioner has neither considered the explanation given by the petitioner for not filing the revision within time nor he attended to the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act /or the condonation of delay in filing the revision. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the revision petition has not been decided by the Settlement Commissioner in accordance with law and the impugned order, dated 19-11-1973 is based on the non-reading of the petition and the application for the condonation" of delay.
6. 5 . For what has been said above, the impugned order, dated 19-11-1973 is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect and the revision is sent back to the Additional Commissioner (Revenue)/Notified Officer, Lahore for fresh decision in accordance with law after giving the parties opportunity of being heard. The parties are left to bear their own costs.