1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-- This order will dispose of both the above-noted petitions as they arise from a common judgment passed by Lahore High Court.
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of these petitions are that Haji Muhammad Siddiq (now deceased and represented by his legal heirs, namely, respondents Nos.1 to 4 herein) was a displaced person. He was successful in getting his claim, in respect of his property abandoned in India, verified in a very large sum. He was, therefore, interested in obtaining transfer of evacuee properties commensurate with his claim. In this connection he was successful in getting a residential house transferred to him, two shops in open auction which are now in dispute--and was also interested in getting the transfer of an industrial concern wherein he was a co-allottee with one Fazal Din. Unfortunately, for him Fazal Din aforesaid happened to be the brother---in-law of Mr. Bashir Ahmad, Settlement Commissioner (Policy). Fazal Din, therefore, to get Haji Muhammad Siddiq out of his way, so far as transfer of the industrial concern was concerned, lodged a complaint before the relevant authorities that the claim which Haji Muhammad Siddiq had got verified in his favour was in fact a bogus claim. This complaint was accepted and Haji Muhammad Siddiq's verified claim was cancelled by Raja Zia Ullah, Claims Commissioner and the Compensation Book issued to him was cancelled. This order was challenged by Haji Muhammad Siddiq but, in the meantime, the Settlement Authorities issued him demand notices for payment of the transfer price of the two shops that he had obtained in auction. In reply, Haji Muhammad Siddiq submitted that he had already filed his Compensation Book for adjusting the price of the shops from the deferred payment lying unutilised in his Compensation Book and even though the said Compensation Book Stood cancelled by Raja Zisullah, Claims Commissioner the latter's order had been challenged by a writ petition. A restraint order too, it appears, had been obtained from the High Court. The Settlement Authorities, however, were not impressed by this reply. Accordingly, the transfer of the shops obtained in auction by him was cancelled and resumed by the department and as the said shops had become available for transfer they were transferred to the locals who were in their possession (who had earlier been unable to get the shops in view of the then prevalent law). In the present proceedings, these local transferees are the petitioners before us.
3. Since, however, the transfer of the shops had in the meanwhile been cancelled Haji Muhammad Siddiq challenged the said order by filing two writ petitions. These were consolidated and heard together. A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed both of them vide order dated 25-11- 1985. It was held that in view of the fact that the verification of the claim of Haji Muhammad Siddiq was pending, the shops purchased by him in auction could not be resumed on the ground' of default in payment of the transfer price, especially as the fact that, the claim was under re- verification was brought to the notice of the' Settlement Authorities and a restraint order too, with regard to their!, transfer, had also been obtained. The last mentioned order of the High Court accepting Haji Siddiq's writ petition is now impugned before us by the two local transferees of the shops (who were transferred the said shops after they were resumed from Haji Muhammad Siddiq).
4. We have heard Mr. Zakiuddin P.I as well as Ch. Khurshid Ahmad in support of these two petitions but we entirely agree with the view taken by the High Court that when the order of Raja Zia Ullah Khan, Claims Commissioner, cancelling the verified claim of Haji Muhammad Siddiq was itself set aside and Haji Muhammad Siddiq on re-verification of the claim submitted by him was again found to be a "claimant"; the shops earlier auctioned in his favour could not be resumed because the Compensation Book submitted by him to the authorities for adjustment of the transfer price of the said two shops, in the above circumstances, was a sufficient answer to the notice of demand issued by the Settlement Authorities for payment of the transfer price of the shops.
5. The upshot is that these petitions are without force and are dismissed accordingly.