This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is directed against the order dated 9-6-1965 of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Gujranwala, and the order dated 14-1-1974 of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Gujranwala exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, whereby the disputed property was directed to be put to auction and respondent No.2 purchased the same.
The dispute in this case relates to house No.BXXII-13-S.12, Gujranwala. This was transferred to respondent No.1 on 19-10-1959 and appendix X was issued under Settlement Scheme No.1 against price of Rs.4,800. Respondent No.1 refused to pay the price on the ground that the property was in dilapidated condition and transfer price was exorbitant. In consequences, the disputed property was included in the earmarking scheme and purchased by the petitioner on 18-12-1959 at the transfer price of Rs.4,800. The PTO was also issued in his favour on 27-5-1960. Thereafter, respondent No.1 submitted a miscellaneous application to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Gujranwala, praying for transfer of the property in dispute to him, whereupon the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by order dated 30-4-1963 rejected the application with the observation that respondent No.1 should seek judicial remedy against the order of transfer made in favour of the petitioner, inasmuch as, previously, on 5-11-1959, he himself declined to seek transfer of the same. Accordingly, an appeal was filed by respondent No.1. The Additional Settlement Commissioner, Lahore Division, Camp at Gujranwala, accepted the appeal by order dated 1-1-1965 and set aside the earning proceedings on the ground that the disputed house already stood transferred to respondent No.1. The petitioner challenged this order in revision. The Settlement Commissioner, Gujranwala, by order dated 5-4-1965 accepted the revision petition and remanded the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. Respondent No.1 took up the plea before the Settlement Commissioner that he never refused to purchase the property and his counsel obtained his signatures on the back of the Appendix to the effect that the property was not intended to be purchased by him. Respondent No.1, however; admitted his signatures on the Appendix. Learned Settlement Commissioner inter alia observed in his revisional order that "if the writing is genuine one, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was justified in putting the house in the earmarking scheme. As the respondent challenges the genuineness of the writing although he admits his signatures, it is necessary to give him an opportunity to prove that he had been defrauded and the writing was not made on his asking." Inter alia in the light of this observation, the case was remanded with the following direction:- "If the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner comes to the conclusion that writing on the Appendix is genuine, the transfer made in favour of the respondent be cancelled first and then the property be disposed of in some other way according to Rules."
3. In pursuance of the remand order, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, after holding an inquiry, held that respondent No.1 had refused to accept the transfer of the property in dispute and, therefore, he was not entitled to its transfer. In this background, the disputed property was put to auction by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by order dated 9-6-1965. In consequence, respondent No.2 purchased the disputed property in open auction which was duly approved by the Chairman of the Auction Committee in consideration of Rs.9000 as the highest bid. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner against the order dated 9-5-1965 of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The Additional Settlement Commissioner, Lahore Division exercising powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner rejected the revision petition on the ground that in terms of the remand order, the property in dispute was either to be transferred to respondent No.1 or disposed of afresh in accordance with law, but the petitioner has no locus standi for the transfer of the property, inasmuch as, he sought no remedy against the remand order dated 5-4-1965. With these observations, the revision petition was dismissed on 14--1-1974.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Gujranawala, dated 9-6-1965, as well as the revisional order dated 14-1-1974 of the Additional Settlement Commissioner are without lawful authority in so far as they have wholly misconceived the purport of the remand order dated 5-4-1965 passed by the learned Settlement Commissioner.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the available record. It is well--settled that a document should be construed by reading it as a whole and not by taking into consideration bits and pieces thereof.
Therefore, in order to discover the purport of the remand order, it should be read as a whole and not only the concluding portion thereof. A bare perusal of the remand order would show that the learned Settlement Commissioner gave a specific finding that in case the writing of Appendix X purported to have been made by respondent No.1 is genuine, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was justified in putting the house. In the earmarking scheme. This being so, the operative part of the remand order that "the transfer made in favour of the respondent be cancelled first and then the property be disposed of in some other way according to Rules" is to be read with the aforesaid observation. When the order is read as a whole, it indubitably leads to the conclusion that in case writing on the Appendix was proved to be genuine, the transfer made in favour of the petitioner through earmarking scheme was not to be disturt3ed. I am, therefore, inclined to hold that the impugned orders are based on erroneous assumption of facts and misconstruction of the remand order.
6. In view of the above, the order dated 5-9-1965 of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Gujranwala, and the order dated 14-1-1974 of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Lahore Division, Camp at Gujranwala, are without lawful authority and of no legal effect insofar as they affect the transfer made in favour of the petitioner through earmarking scheme. Consequently, the transfer made in favour of the petitioner under earmarking scheme shall stand restored and the auction proceedings in favour of respondent No.2 are declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
7. In the result, the writ petition is accepted, but there shall be no order to costs.