The dispute in this petition relates to house No. A-2905 situated in the locality known as Tilak Incline, Hyderabad. One Muhammad Shafiq and Mst. Bakhtawar, his grandmother, lived in this house since 1948. Mst. Bakhtawar moved out of it in 1953, leaving it solely in the occupation of Muhammad Shafiq who was a local. On the promulgation of the Scheme for the transfer of houses, Muhammad Shafiq applied on L. H. Form for the transfer of this house on 7th September 1959 and it was transferred to him by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner as its evaluation price was less than Rs. 10,000. A P. T. O. Was issued on 4th December 1959. Muhammad Shafiq paid the price in cash, which fact is evidenced by the treasury challan dated 1st January 1960. One Syed Nissar Hussain Zaidi approached the --Settlement Commissioner to impugn the transfer not only of this house but also of the adjacent houses Nos. A-2904 and A-2913, which also stood transferred to the locals, on the premise that it was an irregular transfer having regard to the price of these three houses which formed one unit of which the evaluation price was more than Rs. 10,000. The Settlement Commissioner without issuing a show-cause notice cancelled the transfer of the disputed house and the other two houses by order dated 28th October 1960 and the cancellation was communicated by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner vide letter dated 18th November 1971 1960. Muhammad Shafiq filed a revision and so did the other two transferees and at the same time Syed Nisar Hussain Zaidi also filed a revision. All these revisions were decided by one order and while allowing the revision petition of Muhammad Siddiq and Haji Muhammad Ismail, the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 10th November 1961 rejected the revision of Muhammad Shafiq mainly on the ground that he was not proved to be in possession of the house on the target date. Not being satisfied with this order Muhammad Shafiq preferred petition and despatched it by registered post, went due, to the Chief Settlement Commissioner at Multan and as the endorsement on the acknowledgment due shows, it was duly received on 18th December 1961. The filing of the review petition is even mentioned in the judgment of this Court in Petition No. 479/62 filed by Syed Nisar Husain Zaidi to impugn the order dated 101 November 1961, in which not only Muhammad Shafiq but also respondents 3 and 4 were jointed as respondents. That petition was disposed of on 31 March 1965 by an order dismissing it. Muhammad Shafiq sent reminders to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, who eventually called for a report on 27th April 1966 as to the institution and disposal of the review petition. Muhammad Shafiq died on 17th September 1966 and till then that petition remained undisposed of. Finally this petition was filed by his widow who is the first petitioner and his two sons who are minors and represented by petitioner No. 1. When this petition came up for admission a report was called from the Settlement authority and even though there is an acknowledgment due recording the receipt of the application yet a statement was made in the report that it was not forthcoming from any of the concerned Settle--ment authority".
The petitioners could not, therefore, be blamed for the non-disposal of the review petition which was maintain--able under the law then in force. The delay therefore stands explained in these circumstances. The petitioners in this petition have impugned two orders. The first is dated 18th November 1960 which conveys cancellation of the transfer by the Settlement Commissioner; and the second is of 10th November 1961 which was passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner dismissing the revision application.
2. The Department is not defending the petition while respondents 3 and 4 have not appeared to contest the petition. Respondent No. 4 in his affidavit filed earlier has stated that he has no objection if the house is transferred to petitioner No, 1.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argues that the Settlement Commissioner could not cancel the transfer in favour of Muhammad Shafiq, the predecessor-in---interest of the petitioners without issuing him a show-cause notice in terms of section 20(5) of the Displaced Persons (Com--pensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. According to him, a vested right bad accrued which could not be taken away arbitrarily. He has cited Ala Muhammad Qureshi v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and two others (PLD1971SC61), where it was held that even if an opportunity of being beard is availed of later yet where an order is passed in contravention of an absolute requirement of the statute, it is a nullity. These observations are based on the language of section 20(5) of the Act and were made in the face of the contention that the absence of show- cause notice lost all its importance where the aggrieved party had taken the matter in `further revision' before the Settlement Commis--sioner and had got the full opportunity of being heard by him. The observations in this judgment apply on all fours to the instant case and therefore the impugned orders passed by the Settlement Commissioner and the Chief Settlement Commissioner are without lawful authority and of no effect. The result is that this petition accordingly is allowed but since the respondents have not contested the petition, the petitioners will bear their own costs.