In this petition under Article 98 of the Constitution, the petitioner has impugned the order dated the 6th of January 1965, of the District Judge arid Settlement Commissioner, Hyderabad by which the order dated the' 7th of August 1964, of the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner restoring the Final Transfer Deed to the petitioner was set aside.
2. The dispute relates to House No. D/16449, situated in Sohwani Lane, in the City of Hyderabad. The disputed house was included in the list of houses meant for disposal by earmark--ing and vide ~ Provisional Transfer Deed dated the 22nd of December 1959, it was transferred to the petitioner followed by a Final Transfer Deed dated the 31st of October 1962. There--after, on 13th of July 1963, respondent No. 2 filed an application before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Hyderabad: in which he prayed that the Permanent Transfer Deed in favour of the petitioner be cancelled. This application was rejected on the 29th of July 1963 upon the ground that he had no jurisdiction to do so. On appeal to the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner; the Final Transfer Deed in favour of the petitioner was Cancelled upon the following ground : "I have heard the parties and perused the case record. It is evident from C. S. Extracts that No. D/1649, measures only 6.
7. Sqr. Yards which by no. Stretch of imagination can be a self-contained and independent house,"
3. In terms thereof, certain directions were given for ascertaining whether the disputed house was attached to res--pondent No. 2's house No. D/1650 exclusively or a common passage for several other houses and in case it was a common passage, then it should remain as the common property of the others and its value should be recovered from all of them. Pursuant to this direction, two orders were passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on the 8th of February 1964 and 13th of March 1964. Against the order dated the 13th of March 1964; an appeal was again taken up to the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, who re-considered the matter again and restored the Final Transfer Deed in favour of the petitioner vide order dated the 7th of August 1964. Respondent No. 2, again challenged this order in revision before the District Judge and Settlement Commissioner, Hyderabad, who set aside the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated the 7th of August 1964, vide his order dated the 6th of January 1965.
4. There is no challenge to the position that the disputed house has been given a separate number.
It was also not claimed by respondent No. 2. In CH. Form as part of the, house No. D/1650. Since the disputed House had a separate number and was not transferred under paras. 1, 2 and 3 of the Schedule of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), ii was included in the list of houses scheduled for transfer by earmarking. It was accordingly trans--ferred to the petitioner on the 22nd of December 1959 and a Final Transfer Deed was issued on the 31st. Of October 1962. The application for cancellation of the final Transfer Deed was made to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner after the execution of, the Final Transfer Deed. The Deputy Settlement Commis--sioner rightly rejected the application, upon the ground that he ho no jurisdiction to cancel the transfer document as he was not authorised to do so under the Permanent Transfer Rules. On appeal the learned Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner in pursuance of rule 7 of the said Rules, cancelled the Final Transfer Deed. This order appears to be on the face of it illegal. In terms of rule 7, the Permanent Transfer Deed could only be cancelled if the Additional Settlement Commis--sioner was satisfied that the petitioner had secured the transfer of the property or had obtained compensation in any other form by fraud or misrepresentation or in contravention of any provision of the Act. He had also to give reasons for his satisfaction. The passage in the above order reproduced above upon which the transfer deed was cancelled does not show the existence of any of the three grounds. The Settlement Department had treated this house as a separate unit and it was therefore included in the list of houses scheduled for earmarking. The Additional Settlement Commissioner could not at this stage determine that it could not be a self-contained independent house. This consideration was extraneous and it was beyond his jurisdiction to go into any other matter except the considera--tions enumerated in rule
7. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 is unable to support this order upon the reasoning given in the order. He is also unable to show whether the transfer was in contravention of any of the provisions of the Act. There was therefore no jurisdiction in the Additional Settlement Commissioner to cancel the Final Transfer Deed, and the order was passed in clear defiance of rule 7. All proceedings taken thereafter on the basis of this order were also without jurisdiction and of no effect. The result, therefore, is that the order dared 6th January 1965, also falls through and is of no effect. The Final Transfer Deed accordingly remains intact. I would therefore, grant the declaration as prayed in the petition as to the illegality of the order dated the 6th of January 1965.
5. The petition is accordingly allowed with costs.
K. B. A.