MUHAMMAD GUL, J.-This petition for special leave is from the order dated 12-2-1973 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 223/R of 1972, moved by Ghulam Muhammad, respon--dent No. I herein, to call in question the order dated 9-3-1972 by the Settlement Commissioner, reversing his earlier order in favour of the respondent herein.
2. The dispute relates to a plot measuring 2 -- marlas comprising Khasra No. 3295, Tilak Nagar, Badami Bagh, Lahore. Respondent No. 1, it appears, applied to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 19-11- 969, alleging that the plot in dispute had been transferred to him on 21-3- 1960, under Scheme VI, and a P. T. O. Was also issued in his favour. He, therefore, requested for the issuance of appendix and fixation of its prica. It was, however, reported to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner that the relevant file was not traceable in office. Later, on the basis of an attested copy of P. T. O. No. 09!592, supported by an affidavit filed by the respondent, it was ordered that a new file be constructed. That having been done, the respondent was ordered to pay Rs. 1,500.00 as price of the plot. He paid the same and the P. T. D. Was issued in his favour on 29-12-1969.
3. The petitioner, who was a transferee of the adjacent house filed an appeal against the issuance of the P. T. D. Alleging that the plot in dispute according to survey register was `ghair mumkin racta' being used as public street. He also cha4enged the transfer of the plot in favour of the respon-- dent on the further ground that the respondent had not constructed any structure over any part of the plot which was a condition precedent for its transfer under Scheme VI. The Additional Settlement Commissioner visited the site on11-11-1971 and found that there was no visible signs of any structure over the plot in dispute. However, he opined that the petitioner herein not being an applicant for the transfer of the plot had no locus standi to object to or to appeal against the transfer of the plot in favour of the respondent herein, if the latter is otherwise eligible for its transfer. Therefore, even if the transfer of the plot in favour of the respondent was cancelled, the same could not be transferred to the petitioner. On the above view of the matter, the Additional Settlement Commissioner dismissed the petitioner's appeal, but at the same time, directed the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to conduct further inquiry into the factum and propriety of the transfer of the plot in favour of respondent No. 1. The order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner is dated I I-12-1971.
4. Against this order, the petitioner and respondent No. 1 each filed separately a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner. The respondent's Revision Petition (No. 146 of 1971 (to which incidentally the petitioner was not impleaded as respondent) was accepted on the finding that the plot in dispute being evacuee property was rightly transferred under Scheme VI. It was further observed that the Additional Settlement Commis--sioner having dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein for want of locus standi bad no jurisdiction to remand the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for further inquiry particularly when P. T. D. Had already been issued in his favour. Accordingly the order under revision so far as respondent No. 1 was concerned was held "to be without lawful authority". This order is dated 19-1-1972.
5. In the other revision (No. 16 of 1972), filed by the petitioner herein, the same learned Settlement Commissioner, however, by a separate order dated 9-3-1972, reversed his own earlier order dated 19-1-1972, made in revision filed by respondent No. 1 herein on the ground that the earlier order being ex parte against the petitioner herein, was ineffective. Accordingly, he thought appropriate in the fitness of things to remit the case to the Additional Settlement Commissioner for a fresh decision after hearing both the parties and allowing them to produce any evidence they might wish to adduce.
6. Aggrieved by the order dated 9-3-1972, by the learned Settlement Commissioner, respondent No. 1 moved Writ Petition No. 223-R of 1972, which was accepted and the Settlement Commissioner's order dated 9-3-1972 passed in the petitioner's revision was set aside by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the petitioner herein not being an applicant for the transfer of the plot had no locus standi to agitate before the Settlement Authorities against the transfer in favour of the respondent, and further that P. T. D. Having already issued in favour of the respondent, the property had ceased to be evacuee property and, therefore, the Settlement Authorities were no more competent to decide a dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1. In the High Court, it appears, that the petitioner also claimed an easement of way, light and air over the plot in dispute, as the owner and occupier of the adjacent dominant tenement. The learned Single Judge observed that these were matters essentially for the civil Court to decide regarding which a suit between the parties was already pending before a Civil Judge.
7. In seeking leave against the above order of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner's learned counsel reiterated the stand taken on behalf of the petitioner before the Settlement Authorities, that the plot in dispute was a public street and not an evacuee property to be available for transfer under Scheme VI. It cannot be controverted, however, that the Settlement Authorities had throughout treated the plot in dispute as evacuee property available for transfer under Scheme VI.
That being so, the petitioner cannot question the evacuee character of the plot before the Settlement Authorities or before the High Court. For that purpose the proper forum is the Custodian, Evacuee Property. In regard to his alleged right of way or easement of light and air, the civil Court is already seized of the matter which it can, scarcely be controverted is the proper forum.
8. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition which is dismissed.