This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is directed against the order dated: 20-4-1976 of the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore, whereby the transfer of one room forming part 'of property No. 11/34 Sialkot City in favour of petitioners was set aside and the case was remanded to the - Deputy Settlement Commissioner for disposal afresh of the Form filed by Mst. Nazis Begurn respondent and the remand order dated 29-5-1970 of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sialkot, whereby he transferred the disputed room to the respondent Mst. Nazis Begum.
2. Briefly, the facts of this case Ire that Mst. Nazis Begum filed a. K-C.H. Form in September, 1960.
According to the petitioners, this Form was filed on 22-9-1900, but respondent No. 2 claims that the Form was submitted on 19-9-1960. However, .It was admittedly rejected on 22-9-1960 with the remarks, "No allotment order. Rejected."
3. It is alleged that subsequently Mst. Nazis Begum respondent executed a Shirakat Nama on 17-8- 1961 with the petitioners, who are real brothers and sister of respondent No.2. According to this deed, Mst. Nazis Begum sold her verified claim of deferred payment amounting to Rs.538 against her compensation book to the petitioners for the purpose of adjustment of the transfer price of the house in question and surrendered her rights in the disputed house in favour of the petitioners. She also allegedly agreed by a separate deed dated 17-8-1961 to adjust the transfer price of the house in question from her compensation book. Mst. Nazis Begum, however, made some application to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sialkot, challenging therein the genuineness of the said deeds. The application was dismissed by order dated 8-4-1967 of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner inter alia on the ground that it has already been acted upon. Mst Nazir Begum filed an appeal against this order, whereupon the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner-11, Lahore, by' order dated 27-4-1971 dismissed the appeal and upheld the execution of the said deeds. Mst. Nazir Begum filed revision petition before the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore Division, Camp Sialkot. The revision petition was entrusted by the Settlement Commissioner to Mr. NIuhammad Arif Rana, Additional Settlement Commissioner; in the exercise of powers conferred on him under subsection (3) of Suction 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act), which empowers the Settlement Commissioner to dispose of the case either himself or entrust the same to an Additional Settlement Commissioner and the order passed thereon shall be deemed to be an order of the Settlement Commissioner passed in revision and shall have effect accordingly.
4. After hearing the parties and perusing the record, the Additional Settlement Commissioner by order dated 20-4-1976 recorded a finding of fact that Mst. Nazis Begum was in possession of the disputed room before the target date. She was a widow refugee from Jammu & Kashmir and her Form had not been disposed of in a legal way. She was not heard before an adverse order was passed against her. In this background, the transfer of the entire house in favour of the petitioners except the room in question was held as valid. The K.C.H. Form filed by respondent No.2 was restored. The case was remanded to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for disposal of her Form in accordance with law. In consequence, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by order dated 29- 5-1976, after recording the statement of respondent No. 2 and perusing the material available on record, recorded a finding of fact that respondent No. 2 was in undisputed possession of the room, in question, since partition. She was displaced widow and claimant from the occupied territory of Jammu & Kashmir. She had no other shelter to live. In view of these findings, it was held that respondent No.2 was entitled to -the transfer of the disputed room subject to payment of the evaluation price and other public dues. This was followed by a transfer order No.80586 dated 23-6- 1967 issued in favour of respondent No.2.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned order dated 20-4-1976 was passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner who was not competent to do so that, the previous order dated 27-4-1971 was also passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The contention is devoid of any force. The Settlement Commissioner, who entertained the revision petition was competent to entrust it for disposal to any Additional Settlement Commissioner by virtue of subsection (3) of Section 20 of the Act.
6. It is next contended that the impugned order is without jurisdiction for the reason that a revisional Court could not interfere with the findings made by the lower Courts concurrently. The submission is that in the instant case, the Additional Settlement Commissioner concurred with the finding of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and, therefore, his findings are not open to challenge by the Settlement Commissioner in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. This contention is also devoid of any force. No such limitations are imposed on the exercise of powers by the revisional authority under Section 20 (1) of the Act. A Settlement Commissioner is competent to call for the record of any case or proceedings for the purpose. Of the satisfying himself as to correctness, legality or propriety of such order and may pass such order in regard thereto as he thinks fit.
7. It is also argued that respondent No.2 did not file any separate K.C.H. Form transfer of the disputed room, but according to the impugned order, her K.C.H. Form was restored and the case was remanded for disposal of her Form. The plea is untennable. A finding of fact has been recorded by the Additional Settlement Commissioner that respondent No.2 did file her K.C.H. Form and, therefore, no exception could be taken to the restoration of the same and its disposal in accordance with law.
8. It is next submitted that according to, page 105 of the Settlement file, respondent No.2 was aware of the `Shirakat Nama' executed in the year 1961 and, therefore, she could not be permitted to repudiate the same after many years. The contention is again unsustainable. The revisional authority was not powerless to correct any illegality in the orders passed by the subordinate Settlement Authorities. Here the `Shirkat Nama' was not entertained after recording the statements of the parties. This being a condition precedent for acceptance of the agreement. There was no agreement in the eye of law. Furthermore, the genuineness of the `Shirakat Nama' has been disputed before the Settlement authorities by respondent No.2 and the room in dispute has been treated as a separate unit which was within the domain of the Settlement authorities. From this angle as well, the impugned order is not open to any exception.
9. It is next argued that respondent No.2 did not file any proper appeal in time, but merely filed an application after a period of six years before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for the redress of her grievance. The plea is untenable, The initial order of transfer in favour of the petitioners was ex parte. Respondent No.2 could competently file an application for its setting aside before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner when the. Ex parte transfer order came to his knowledge.
10. It is further submitted that K.C.H. Form of respondent No.2 was rejected on 22-9-1960, but she filed no appeal against it and, therefore, it attained finality. Suffice it to say, the record does not indicate that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner rejected the Form of Mst. Nazir Begum, supported by an affidavit, after holding an inquiry. I have seen the original Settlement file. The application is dated 12-7-1960. Affidavit of Mst. Nazir Begum is dated 2-9-1960. It was entertained on 19-9-1960 and rejected on 22-9-1960 without notice to respondent No.2. The order of rejection was, therefore, a nullity in the eye of law. Learned counsel contended that Mst. Narir Begum is estoppcd by her conduct to resile from the execution of the `Shirakat Nama' dated 17-8-1961, inasmuch as, according to page 105 of the Settlement file, she made an application on 22-4-1967 under her thumb-impression addressed to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sialkot, praying therein for issuance of a certificate testifying that she has executed a `Shirakat Nama' on 7-8-1961 and the compensation book was deposited with the Settlement Commissioner. But according to page 109 of the Settlement file, Mst. Nazir Beguin submitted an application on 21-11-1966 that the petitioners have stolen away her compensation book. There is also a statement dated 16-8-1967 of Mst. Nazir Begum respondent, recorded by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sialkot, wherein she has inter alia stated that she never executed any deed in favour of the petitioners and her Form and compensation book had been stolen by her brothers. This being so, the question whether the `Shirakat Nama' was genuine or it was executed in the year 1961 as alleged by petitioners is a disputed question of fact which cannot be examined in writ jurisdiction
11. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs.