' Dispute concerns property No 1368/6-M, Multan City. It comprises of 11 rooms. Hakim Ali, a claimant displaced person, submitted C.S. Form No,146 on 10-7-1959 to claim transfer of a room in his possession which he described as shop. C.S. Form is Annexure 'B'. The form though received by the Settlement Department was not disposed of. On 8-1-1960 Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Multan transferred property in dispute in favour of Abdul Latif and Ghulam Muhammad sons of Nawab Din, At the end of the aforesaid order, it is stated "PTO No,28908 already issued". In Provisional Transfer Order Annex. 'C' which does not bear any date of issue, name of Hakim All son of Ghulam Ali along with Abdul Latif and Ghulam Muhammad sons of Haji Nawab Din also appeared. However, name of aforesaid Hakim Ali was scored out. For purposes of transfer, property was evaluated at Rs,10,680. Payment was made by respondents and accordingly P.T.D.
Was issued in their favour. Petitioner approached Deputy Settlement Commissioner Multan to have his grievance redressed. His petition was dismissed on 22-4-1976 (Annex. 'D'). Petitioner, against order, dated 22-4-1976 of Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Multan filed a petition for revision in the Court of Additional Commissioner (Revenue)/Settlement Commissioner, Multan Division. It was dismissed on the sole ground that after repeal of evacuee laws,, Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction to interfere. This was vide order, dated 5-7-1976. Aggrieved by this order petitioner came up to this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. Constitution petition was admitted on 5-8- 1976 and has come up today for final hearing.
2. Sh. Abdul Qayyum, Advocate for petitioner raised following points:--
(1) Petitioner applied for transfer of a room in his possession and submitted C.S. Form. It was received by the Settlement Authority but was not properly disposed of. Property was allotted to Hakim All on 5-4-1949 and was transferred to him alongwith Abdul Latif and Ghulam Muhammad which fact is borne out by Provisional Transfer Order No,28908.
(2) Name of Hakim Ali petitioner had been scored out from the Provisional Transfer Order without notice or providing an opportunity of hearing to him. This fact was kept a closed secret from the petitioner and no notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 was issued. The notice if issued, would have revealed the correct state of affairs to the petitioner.
' Syed Hamid Ali Shah and Mian Habib-ur-Rehman, Advocates appeared for respondents Nos. 1 arid 2 while Settlement Authority was represented by Sardar Ahmad Nawaz Qaiserani, Advocate. It was contended that the petitioner had not submitted any form for transfer of the suit property. It was also submitted that Appendix X R/4 was issued on 14-11-1959 in favour of respondents Nos.1 and 2 and P.T.D. Has also been issued in their favour. Name of Hakim All was erroneously mentioned in the P.T.O. Which was subsequently removed to make it coincide with the transfer order issued on 14-11-1959. Learned counsel also submitted that the petition was barred by lathes. It was argued that P.T.D. Was issued in favour of respondents and that the petitioner for the first time raised the dispute before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in the year 1976. Sardar Ahmed Nawaz Qaiserani, Advocate on behalf of the Settlement Department conceded that before a Provisional Transfer Order is issued, the Settlement Authority was bound to pass a judicial order determining the entitlement of the claimants inter se. Such an order except Appendix-X, dated 14-11-1959 and order, dated 8-1-1960 is not available op the present record.
3. I have given anxious consideration to the points raised. Per allotment order, dated 5-4-1949, the property was allotted to Hakim Ali. He submitted a form for transfer. In the C.S. Form, reference to allotment order, dated 5-4-1949 has been made. It is not denied by the Settlement Department that such a form was received. It is correct that Appendix X, dated 14-11-1959 was issued in favour of respondents Nos.1 and 2 on 14-11-1959. It is also correct that vide order, dated 8-7-1960 respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were found entitled to the transfer of the whole property. P.T.D has since been issued to the respondents. In the Permanent Transfer Deed, reference to orders, dated 14-11- 1959 and 8-1-1960 has been made. However, it 'could not be denied that in the P.T.O. Prepared by the Settlement Authority name of Hakim Ali son of Ghulam All was shown as co-transferee with respondents. How, when in what circumstances and by whom the name of Hakim Ali was scored out, is not ascertainable on the present record. Learned counsel for the respondents have failed to furnish satisfactory explanation in this behalf. It is not denied that name of Hakim All was there when the P.T.O. Was issued. It is further not denied that Hakim Ali was not heard before his name was scored out. Absence of notice and non-hearing is, therefore, admitted. It also needs explanation as to how P.T.O. Was issued before entitlement vide order, dated 8-1-1960 was determined. Explanation given by the respondents including the Settlement Department is found unsatisfactory. The case, therefore, requires a remit on the following points:-
(i) Whether petitioner submitted C.S. Form, if so, was it disposed of?
(ii) Has any judicial order determining entitlements of the claimants A inter se was passed before Appendix X was issued and could Provisional Transfer Order be issued before determination of claimant entitlements and that what was the date of issue of P.T.O. ?
(iii) How, when in what circumstances, and by whom the name of Hakim All was scored out and whether he was heard before his name was scored out ?
(iv) Whether room in possession of the petitioner could be treated as shop and was transferable as such ?
4. Adequate material is not available on file to resolve the above controversy which required investigation on facts. Writ petition accordingly is allowed, impugned orders, are set aside and are declared to have been passed without lawful authority. The case is remitted to learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Multan with powers of Deputy Settlement Commissioner to decide it afresh. Learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner, after affording an opportunity of hearing, and if need be recording evidence shall record his findings on the aforenoted points and, then decide the case in accordance with law. Since it is a settlement matter, learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) may like to expedite the hearing and preferably decide the case by the end of March, 1986. Parties have been directed to appear before the Court on 1-12-1985. In the circumstances of the case, costs to be borne as incurred.