ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH. J.-- This appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 31-5-1974, whereby the Constitutional petition of the appellants against the order of the Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, dated 14-7-1973, was dismissed.
2. The dispute in this case relates to the transfer of urban agricultural land measuring 8 Kanals, bearing Khasra Nos. 2308/727 (6 Marlas), 2309/727 (1 Kanal), 728 (3 Kanals 12 Marlas) and 729 (3 Kanals 2 Marlas), situate in village Tench, lying within the limits of Rawalpindi Cantonment. This land was initially treated as building site and transferred to respondents 1 to 3 by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, and P.T.Ds. Were issued on 10-12-1963, 9-7-1963 and 6-9- 1964. It seems that respondents Nos. 1 to 3 later on transferred the land of respondents Nos.7 to 9.
3. Subsequent to the above transfers, a separate proceeding in respect of this very land was initiated under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act--- treating it as urban agricultural land and transferred to one Said Muhammad against his verified claim. This transfer was however, cancelled from the name of Said Muhammad and given to Shafqat Hassain against his verified claim on 11-4-1969 and R.L.II was issued in his name. The two appellants purchased the suit land in equal shares from Shafqat Hussain vide Mutations Nos. 1817 and 1798. The record shows that somewhere in 1973 the appellants came to know that the land in dispute already stood transferred to respondents 1 to 3 as building site as back as 1963-64. The appellants, therefore, challenged the transfer of land in favour of respondents 1 to 3 by filing three separate revision petitions before the Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi. These revisions were, however, dismissed by the learned Settlement Commissioner through his consolidated order dated 14-7-1973 and so was their writ petition.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The perusal of the orders of the Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, and the learned Single Judge of the High Court hardly leaves any scope for us to interfere in the matter. On the question of remedy availed of by the appellants, Mr.Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate, counsel for appellant No.2. Admitted at the bar that since the appeals were time-barred, therefore the Settlement Commissioner was approached on revisional side. This obviously could not be done because the right of appeal, which is a substantive right, was available to the appellants, therefore, under the law if was required of them to have first availed of the remedy of appeal, the question of limitation notwithstanding. Since the appellants have failed to exhaust the remedy of appeal first, the revisions were incompetent and was rightly held so by the Courts below. Further, admittedly the suit land stood disposed of by an authority of competent jurisdiction as building site within the year 1963-64 and P.T.Ds. Had already been issued.
There is nothing on the record to show that the transfers already made had been cancelled by a competent authority. In that view of the matter, the land in question was not available for disposal and it, therefore, could not be treated as an urban agricultural land and transferred in favour of Shafqat Hussain. On this score too the transfer of the land in the name of Shafqat Hussain as an urban agricultural land was bad in law.
5.Finding no force, this appeal is dismissed with no orderis to costs.