1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-This review petition is from the order of this Court dismissing the petitioner's leave petition. The ground for the review is that the statement in the order of this Court that tile transferees including the predecessor-in-interest of respondents had been in possession for many years is not correct. The following passage appears in the order of the Division Bench passed in the Letters Patent Appeal: "It was in these circumstances that the Central Government approved the sales in their favour because the Government thought that it was not in the public interest to disturb the claimants transferee in their right to hold the property which had been in their possession for period extending over years without, in any way, adversely affecting the right of any person."
2. This statement of fact does not appear to have been challenged before this Court when the impugned order was passed. In any event, the main reason upon which the learned Judges of the High Court upheld the transfer in favour of the respondent was that the property in dispute had first been transferred to Saida Begum predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, a claimant displaced person, as early as 19-12-1960, by the Additional Settlement Commissioner and this order of transfer was never challenged and it was never set aside. The Central Government, acting under section 10(2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. Approved the said transfer on the 26th September 1970, with effect from the date of the original transfer, i.e., 9th December 1960. This approval was made upon the recommendation of the Settlement Commissioner.
3. It appears, however, that in the meantime the Settlement Scheme No. VIII was promulgated in 1965 and the petitioner having claimed thereunder filed an N. C. H. Form. It is thus evident that on the date of the transfer, namely, the 9tl December 1960, there was no property available for transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. In his writ petition the only point that was raised by the petitioner was that inasmuch as the transfer of the property by the Central Government was not in public interest, the transfer was lead. This contention was overruled. On appeal, the Letters Patent Bench, after having stated the facts and circumstances of the case held that the transfer by the Central Government was valid.
4. While disposing of the leave petition this Court held that the house in dispute along with the several other houses had been transferred by the Additional Settlement Commissioner to a number of claimants including the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent many years ago when no other person had applied for the transfer of the said houses, Subsequently however, it was discovered that the Additional Settlement Commissioner was not competent to make the transfer but this objection subsequently lost its force by the approval of the transfer by the Central Government with effect from the date of the transfer by the Additional Settlement Commissioner.
5. The Central Government, undoubtedly had the power" to make the transfer in the public interest and in the facts and circumstances of the case this Court was of the opinion that the transfer of the disputed property to the predecessor of the respondents, which also involved the transfer of properties to several other claimants, was in public interest, and according it was validly made by the Central Government.
6. The case of Ghulam Mohyuddin v. Government of Pakistan (1971 SCMR 747) which has been cited before us, has no application to the facts of the case. In the case under report the appellant was a claimant displaced person and he claimed possession of the disputed shop and applied for its transfer in his favour. His claim was considered by the Settlement Authorities at different levels, but it was ultimately rejected on the ground that he was not in possession of the shop from before the 20th December 1958. The shop was, accordingly, placed in the auction pool for disposal by public auction. The Settlement Authorities had held that the appellant was neither an allottee, nor was be in possession of the shop from before the 20th December 1958. The appellant, therefore, applied to the Central Government for the transfer of the property to him in the exercise of its special power under the law, but the prayer was rejected. Thereafter, the shop, instead of being put to auction, was transferred by the Central Government in favour of one Muhammad Akbar. This transfer was unsuccessfully challenged by the appellant in a writ petition. The appellant, however, succeeded in his appeal before the Supreme Court. It was in these circumstances that this Court held that although the appellant had no locus standi to challenge this transfer in favour of Muhammad Akbar, the transfer of the shop by the Central Government in exercise of its power under section 10(2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, was not valid for the simple reason that the transfer was not purported to have been made in the public interest.
7. There is no ground for review and the petition is, accordingly, dismissed.