SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order, dated 3-5-1982 of the Lahore High Court dismissing the civil revision of the petitioners against the order, dated 8- 10-1981 of the Additional District Judge whereby the order, dated 21-7-1979 of a Civil Judge rejecting the plaint of the petitioners was affirmed.
2. The dispute in this petition relates to the residential portion of a composite property situate in New Anarkali, Lahore. The portion in question was in the occupation of the petitioners and they were running a hotel therein after taking it on lease from the Hindu owner before Independence.
When the settlement operations started, one of the shops forming part of the property was in the occupation of respondent No. 1 and it was transferred to him. Later, he obtained the residential portion also. Subsequently, the petitioners executed a rent deed in his favour. One Abdul Ghani represented before the Chief Settlement Commissioner that the transfer of the residential portion to respondent No. 1 was tainted with fraud but his application was filed without any enquiry. When Settlement Scheme No. VIII became operative, the petitioners filed an application before the Settlement Commissioner alleging that the transfer of the residential portion to respondent No. 1 was fraudulent and was the result of misrepresentation and forgeries. An enquiry was held by the Settlement Commissioner into these allegations. He found that respondent No. 1 was neither an allottee nor in possession of the residential portion which was a commercial unit and that after having obtained the transfer of a shop he could not be given another commercial unit.
Accordingly, by an order, dated 8-4-1969 he set aside the transfer and cancelled the transfer documents already issued in his favour. Aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Commissioner he filed a writ petition in the High Court. A learned Single Judge accepted the writ petition and declared the order of the Settlement Commissioner to be null and void on the ground that after a P.
T . D . Had been issued in his favour the Settlement Authorities could not reopen the matter. In coming to this conclusion the learned Judge relied upon three decisions of this Court. Two of them have been reported as Amiruddin v Settlement Commissioner and others 1973 SCMR 624 and Syed Murid Hussain Shah v. Mufti Muhammad Yousaf A.I and another 1974 SCMR 8. The third is the unreported judgment in Civil Appeal No. 39 of 1972. The learned Judge also cited a passage from the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 39 of 1972 wherein it was observed that:-- "In this view of the matter, the Settlement Commissioner was perfectly justified in holding that he had no power to cancel the P.T.D. On the ground of fraud and misrepresentation. In the circumstances of the present case the proper remedy for respondent No. 1 is to challenge the P.T.D.
On the ground of fraud and misrepresentation before the civil Court, if so advised."
3. Relying upon this passage the petitioners filed a civil suit inter alia to seek a declaration to the effect that the order of transfer made by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in respect of the property in dispute was illegal, mala fide and in excess in jurisdiction as having been secured by respondent No. 1 through misrepresentation and fraud. By an order, dated 21-7-1979 a civil Judge rejected the plaint holding that the petitioners had no locus standi to challenge the transfer as Scheme No. VIII did not affect the properties which already stood transferred before it came into force. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge and a civil revision before the High Court without any success. They now seek leave to appeal from the orders of the High Court and the subordinate Courts.
4. It is inter alia contended on behalf of the petitioners that the High Court had denied relief to them in the constitutional jurisdiction on the ground that after the issuance of a permanent transfer deed the settlement authorities had no jurisdiction to reopen the matter. In support of its decision, the learned counsel points out the High Court relied upon a judgment of this Court wherein it was observed that the proper forum to investigate the plea of fraud and misrepresentation was the civil Court. Accordingly, they filed a civil suit but the civil Courts, too, have declined to examine their plea of fraud and misrepresentation. As a result of the view taken by the civil Court they have been denied access to all forums from where they may obtain redress for their grievance. This is an extremely anomalous position which needs to be resolved.
5. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners needs examination. We would accordingly grant leave to the petitioners to appeal. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.1,000. Status quo order already made to continue on the same terms.