1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-This order will dispose of Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal bearing Nos.
2. 303 and 304 of 1972, which raise identical questions of law and fact. 7 hey are directed against an order made by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 1-6-72, whereby Writ Petitions bearing Nos. 1317-R and 401-R of 1965, instituted by the respondents to these peti--tions were accepted, the orders of the Settlement authorities trans--ferring the properties in dispute were set aside, and the cases were remanded to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for fresh decision in accordance with law after giving notice to the parties concerned.
3. The property involved in the first petition is Sirai Duni Chand, and in the second petition it is Sirai Takht Ram, both buildings being situate in the town of Darya Khan in Bhakkar tehsil of the Mianwali district. The respondents, as petitioners in the High Court, had alleged that they were displaced persons from India and were in occupation of various portions of these Sirais, that they had filed the necessary applications for the transfer to them of the residential portions in their possession, but without disposing of these applications the two buildings were transferred respectively to Sh.
4. Azizud Din and his son Nisar Ahmad under orders said to have been passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, It may be stated that Sh. Azizud Din has since died and the matter in the first petition is being pursued by his legal representatives.
5. The High Court has taken the view that the procedure adopted for the disposal of these two Sirais was unusual and extraordinary, that the matter was dealt with by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on the administrative side, with the necessary result that the claims of the respondents for transfer of the portions in their occupation were not considered on merits by any Settlement authority, that the appeals and revisions filed by the respondents were a meaningless exercise as these Officers declined to interfere for the reason that the disposal of the two properties had been ordered by the Chief Settlement Commis--sioner, and that the instructions issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner himself, as appearing at page 123 of the old Manual of Settlement Law and Procedure, for the disposal of buildings of this category were completely ignored. On these findings the High Court his held the orders of the Settlement authorities to be without lawful authority and remitted the two cases for a fresh decision.
6. In support of these petitions for special leave to appeal, it is submitted by Mr. A. H. Najafi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the High Court was in error in interfering with the orders made by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, as those orders were within his competence to make under section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and their validity was not affected by the fact that the appellate and the revisional authorities could not interfere at the instance of the respondents. He further submits that the perma--nent transfer deeds having been issued in both the cases after the respondents had filed their appeals and revisions, it was no longer open to the High Court to interfere in the matter. Finally, Mr. Najafi submits that in any case the High Court has made certain observations regarding the possession of the respondents and the fact of their having made the requisite applications for the transfer of their respective portions, which are likely to pre--judice the petitioners when the two cases are re- examined by the Settlement authorities. He contends that these facts are controverted by the petitioners who allege that the respondents were never in possession of any portions of these Sirais and never made any applications for their transfer.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length, we have come to the conclusion that no justification is made out for our interference in the matter. It will be seen that according to instructions appearing at page 123 of the Old Manual of Settlement Law and Procedure the evacuee Sirais and Mandies consisting of more than one residential or commercial unit had to be divided into houses and shops as the case may be, and each unit disposed of separately on the same basis as a house or a shop is disposed of under the Act. Persons occupying indi--vidual residential or commercial units were to be permitted to submit the necessary applications in forms CE, NCH, CS, NCS and LH, etc., as the case may be, if they had not submitted such forms already. It was further stipulated by these instructions, issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on the 9th/16th of March 1960, that if a particular unit could not be transferred to the person in possession, the residential unit had to be included in the earmarking list and the commercial unit put to auction.
8. It is clear that the two Sirais in dispute in these cases had ordinarily to be disposed of in accordance with these instructions, especially when the respondents had been urging all along that they were persons in possession of different portions of these two Sirais and had submitted the necessary applications in the prescrib--ed forms for their transfer. Even though these facts may be disputed by the present petitioners, and for that reason, the High Court could not have recorded positive findings thereon, yet the question of the judicial disposal of the claims and applications urged by the respondents had to be decided by the Settlement authorities at various levels in accordance with law. This was not done, and instead direct orders were made by the Chief Settlement Commissioner directing the transfer of these Sirais in favour of father and son. The High Court was, therefore, right in pointing out that the procedure adopted for the disposal of these two Sirais was unusual and extraordinary, and had resulted in depriving the respondents from having their claims considered according to law.
9. On this view of the matter, it is hardly necessary to examine whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner had, or not, the jurisdiction to order the disposal of these two Sirais under section 10 of the Act. Even if he had the necessary jurisdiction he was expected to exercise that jurisdiction judiciously and with due regard to the claims of persons who were asserting that they were displaced persons in occupation of different portions of these evacuee buildings and by passing orders on the administrative side, the Chief Settlement Commissioner clearly acted without lawful authority inasmuch as he failed to adjudicate upon the claims of the respondents to the present proceedings.
10. The contention that the High Court could not interfere in the matter after permanent transfer deeds had been issued to the transferees, is sought to be supported by reference to Anwar Hussain v.
11. Sarfraz Ahmad (PLD 1971 SC 669) in which it was laid down that "there can be no dispute with the general principle that after title has passed to the person in whose favour a P. T. D., has been issued the Settlement Authorities become functus officio to deal with that property." It will be seen that the principle enunciated by this Court had reference to the powers of the,& Settlement authorities, and not to the powers of judicial review vesting in the High Court under Article 98 of the 1962- Constitution.
12. For the foregoing reasons, we see no merit in these petitions which are accordingly dismissed.
13. However, it is made clear that the Settlement authorities are to apply their independent mind to the questions of fact arising in these cases, uninfluenced by the obser--vations made by the High Court, regarding the occupation of the respondents and their having made the necessary applications for the transfers of their portions etc.