1. ' The petitioner had obtained transfer of the premises bearing No,B/169/3 (C.S.No, 317/4) measuring 3,020 sq. Ft. For a sum of Rs,4,530 and P.T.O. Was issued in his favour on 25-7-1960. Out of this plot under an agreement, dated 1-1-1963 an area measuring 2,675 sq. Ft. Was sold by him to Mishal Khan. This agreement clearly provided that out of the entire area transferred to the petitioner 240 sq. Ft. Has been given to Meharban Shah and Mir Hasan and a small shop measuring 15 x 7 (105 sq.
2. Ft.) situated on South-Western corner of the plot was retained by him for his personal use and was rented out to Abdul Ghani. The rest of the area namely 2,675 sq. Ft. Was sold and a plan was also attached with the agreement. It seems that Mishal Khan obtained PTD in respect of the entire property in his favour.
3. ' The petitioner coming to know about this fact challenged, the PTD issued in favour of Mishal Khan, but the Settlement Authorities, refused to interfere. The petitioner, therefore, filed Constitutional Petition No,461 of 1965 and the matter ended in settlement which was filed in the Court. It was agreed between the parties that the PTD issued to Mishal Khan should be amended and an area of 373 sq. Ft. Including the shop in possession of Abdul Ghani be transferred to the petitioner and a separate PTD be issued to him. In compliance with this compromise order separate and fresh PTD was issued in favour of the petitioner for an area cf 373 sq. Ft. It seems that the Settlement Authorities demanded Rs,3,600 from the petitioner as deficit amount towards the price of the property, but he refused to pay the entire amount, except the amount falling to his proportionate share of 373 sq. Ft. Similar demand seems to have been made from Mishal Khan, but he also failed to pay, and therefore the Settlement Commissioner issued a show-cause notice to Mishal Khan, in which he was directed to pay Rs,3,600 in cash otherwise the property was to be resumed and PTD withdrawn. Mishal Khan did not pay the amount, and, therefore, the property was resumed on 25- 4-1974. It seems that after the resumption when the property was made available for transfer, one Abdullah son of Mishal Khan applied for its transfer, and on 20-6-1974 it was transferred to him on 28-6-1974 the property was demarcated and a demarcation plan was issued which has been filed by the petitioner alongwith the petition. According to this demarcation plan the petitioner was allocated a portion of 373 sq. Ft. Which included 105 sq. Ft. Which was in his possession, on the South-Western side of the plot as mentioned in the agreement of sale. The respondent No,2 filed an application before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner challenging this demarcation, who by his order, dated 8-3-1975 cancelled it and ordered for the redemarcation of the property by allocating a portion on the back side of the plot to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged this order in Revision, but the same was dismissed by the learned Settlement Commissioner on 27-2-1976. The learned Settlement Commissioner held that the order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner is illegal and without jurisdiction but as he had no jurisdiction to interfere with the matter the revision was dismissed.
4. ' Mr. Abdul Naseer Khan the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as the right of the petitioner has been settled and adjudicated upon in Writ Petition No,461 of 1968 the respondent No,3 had no jurisdiction to interfere or alter the same. On the other hand Mr.Ramchand the learned counsel for the respondent No,2 contended that as the transfer was made to the respondent No,2 on 20-6-1974, and there was no final demarcation, the order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for re-allocation of the plot is proper. From the proceedings the substance of which has been narrated above it is clear that the petitioner from the very beginning has been in possession of a shop on the South-Western portion of the plot. When he sold the property to Mishal Khan this portion which was in his possession was not the subject-matter of the sale. This fact has been confirmed by the order passed in the Constitutional Petition. Even in that petition, the petitioner was allowed land in excess of 105 sq. Ft. Where his shop was situated. A separate transfer order was issued in his favor in respect of 373 sq. Ft. Of land. This 373 sq. Ft. Cannot be on any other portion of the plot except where his shop is situated and which was not the subject-matter of transfer made to Mishal Khan. The PTD issued to Mishal Khan was in respect of that portion of plot which was not in possession of the petitioner. The PTD issued to Mishal Khan was cancelled, and the property was resumed. The effect of the resumption was that only that protion of the property was made available for transfer which was not in possession of the petitioner. The Inspector demarcated the plot which was confirmed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 26-9-1974.
5. After the approval of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, a plan to that effect had been issued.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly contended that after approval this order would be deemed to be the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, and, therefore, the respondent No,1 had no jurisdiction to review that order. The remedy, if any available to the respondent No,2, could be sought through a proper Civil Court o competent jurisdiction. However, in the present case as the propert transferred to respondent No,2 was the same property which had been resumed it cannot be contended that it included the property transferee to the petitioner by the High Court. It is thus clear that the order passed by the respondent No,1 is without jurisdiction. The impugned order passed by respondent No,1 is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and is of no legal effect.
7. ' The petition is allowed with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.