ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.--The dispute relates to House No.F-90, Chitian Hattian, Jogi Mohallah, Rawalpindi. The appellant was in possession and a claimant. He filed C.H. Form. The house was transferred to him for Rs.11,040 on 23-11-1959. He put in an application on 30-11-1959 saying that the transfer price was excessive. His claim was less and he would like to withdraw from the transfer of the house in question. He also put in an application on 31-3-1961 saying that he had got the appendix, i.e. The intimation of transfer but the price was excessive. It should be reduced or his Form may be cancelled. The appellant did not pay the transfer price. He was issued a notice for payment of the transfer price on 14-10-1969. It was received by his son Muhammad Rafique, though the appellant states that he had no son with the name of Muhammad Rafique. However, for non- payment of the price, the transfer order was cancelled by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 9-1-1970. Many a time the house was put to auction but nobody including the appellant came forward to purchase it. Thereafter, it was transferred on negotiation basis by the Settlement Commissioner in favour of respondent No.2 for Rs.7,671. The appellant filed an application for transfer in his own name under Settlement Scheme No. IX on 20-10-1977 which was rejected on the ground that the house had already been transferred. The appellant filed Writ Petition No.1409-R-77 which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge with the observations that the petitioner himself had declined to accept the transfer of house in 1959 and then in 1961. He cannot now question the legality of the order of the authorities cancelling the transfer from his name. Therefore, the transfer in favour of respondent No.2 made in 1976 was perfectly valid and further that the application of the petitioner for transfer in 1977 was rightly rejected. This is vide order dated 26-4-1978. 31 years later, on 13-11-1981, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.844-R-80 out of which the present appeal has arisen but the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 16-11-1978. Hence this I . C . A .
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that although the cancellation of the transfer of the house in the name of the appellant earlier transferred under Settlement Scheme No.l in his favour had' become final, the appellant was entitled to the transfer of the house under Settlement Scheme No.IX, for which he had filed the Form because the transfer in favour of the respondent No.2 was never made. In the previous writ petition it was stated that the transfer order in favour of the respondent No.2 was passed on 5-8-1976 and in the Annexure R/9 filed with the appeal, it is stated to be dated 10-7-1976. In any case, the order of transfer in favour of respondent No.2 if any was illegal.
3. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that the appellant has been transferred another house F.831 for which he has also been issued Permanent Transfer Deed, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure 'R/7'. It was submitted that in this view of the matter, the appellant is clearly not entitled to any relief. Haji Abdur Rahim, father of Mst. Naseem Akhtar, respondent No.3, who has purchased the house in dispute from the transferee -- respondent No.2, has submitted that the house purchased by the appellant in auction for which he has been issued the P.T.D. (Annexure R/7) is still in his name and he is still occupying the same. If that be not so, his appeal may be accepted, otherwise the same is liable to be rejected.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of both the petitions.
The house in dispute was transferred to the appellant which he declined to take in 1959 and then in 1961. It was transferred to the respondent No.2 in 1976,and it makes no difference what date of transfer was mentioned in the report in the earlier writ petition or what exactly the date of transfer was. The fact of the matter is that there was a transfer in favour of respondent No.2 which was considered by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1409-R-77 and the appellant's writ petition was dismissed on the score that not only he had declined to take the house but it had also been transferred to the respondent No.2 in 1976 and his filing of the Form under Settlement Scheme No.IX in 1977 'was of no effect. Consequently, it will be quite apparent that the right of the appellant was extinguished by the judgment in the aforesaid writ petition dated 26-4-1978 and the rights of respondent No.2 for having obtained the transfer of the house from the Settlement Authorities in 1976, were upheld. That being the situation, the Form of the appellant under Settlement Scheme No.IX subsequently filed was rightly rejected and so also his writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen. There is thus no force in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs.