1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.--The dispute relates to House No,C/256 situate at Vehoa, Tehsil Taunsa, District Dera Ghazi Khan.
2. ' One Azimullah applied for the transfer of this house on the basis of its possession by him but the form was rejected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 20th June, 1960. It appears from the letter of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Dera Ghazi Khan addressed to the Secretary, District Armed Services, Dera Ghazi Khan at page 69 of the departmental record that Nasrullah had not filed any regular application in the prescribed form for the transfer of House No,C/256. This statement in the letter was made in response to the application filed by his son Amirullah who was then serving in the army.
3. ' Azimullah, however, did not file any appeal against the rejection of his form. As the disputed house was available for auction, it was, accordingly, sold by auction to Sardar Allah Nawaz Khan who gave the highest hid which was subsequently confirmed. Azimullah himself participated in the auction as his name appears in the list of bidders.
4. ' In 1968, ejectment proceedings were taken for the eviction of Azimullah and in those proceedings Nasrullah appeared as a witness on 9th of June, 1969, and stated that he was in possession and not Azimullah. The Rent Controller, however, did not accept his claim and passed an order of eviction on 24th of April, 1972, which was upheld in appeal by the District Judge by order, dated 11th of May, 1973.
5. ' It appears that Nasrullah filed an appeal against the order, dated 22nd June, 1960, on the basis that it was he who had submitted the form and put his thumb-impression and it purported to seek transfer in the joint names of himself and his brother Azimullah. This appeal was dismissed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 17-12-1972 but the Settlement Commissioner on 22nd of March, 1974, in revision set aside the order and remanded the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for recording his findings on the following points:
(i) Whether Nasrullah has been in possession of the house;
(ii) Whether he filed a form and the entry of such filing exists in the relevant register; and
(iii) Whether the disputed property was put to auction and if so whether it was confirmed.
6. ' On remand the Deputy Settlement Commissioner held on the first point that both Nasrullah and Azimullah were in possession of the disputed house. On the second point the finding is as under: "Although a form N.C.H. Is placed on the file on behalf of Nasrullah and Azimullah but there is no signature of the competent authority who admitted this form nor date of submission of form is given by the applicant. I have also examined the C.S.C. 2 Register, but no entry of form appears in the register maintained by this office."
7. ' And on the third point, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner held that the property was auctioned and the auction was confirmed. His final conclusion was that though Nasrullah remained in possession of the disputed property, but he did not file a proper form, and, therefore, he was not entitled to its transfer; and that on the other hand, the auction was properly held and confirmed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner in favour of Sardar Allah Nawaz Khan who had since died and is now repesented by his legal heirs. There is also a mention of the fact in the order that he had submitted an NCH form under the Revised Settlement Scheme No, VIII but as the property had already been disposed of in regard to which a litigation was pending, the form did not need any consideration and was rejected.
8. ' Against this order, Nasrullah invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court and succeeded.
9. The High Court held: "On remand, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner held the petitioner to be in possession but the reason which he gave for depriving the petitioner of the transfer is not supported by any provision of law. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner never mentioned as to what was the defect in the form filed by the petitioner and on what ground it was treated to be not a 'proper form'. Even otherwise the initial order dated 22-6-1960 was not in accordance with law as it had been passed in the absence of the petitioner. There is nothing on the record to show that he was summoned and yet he did not turn up."
10. ' And further: "In this connection I may observe that the house transferred to Azimullah is a different one than the one in dispute, nor can any importance be given to any finding arrived at by the learned Civil Judge in the litigation between the respondent and Azimullah. Petitioner being a non-claimant displaced person and in possession of house in dispute could not be deprived of the transfer on account of some technical flaw in the form which had not been even mentioned and I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the name of Azimullah in the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 22-6-1960 could be a genuine mistake; one as a matter of fact, it should have been Nasrullah."
11. Leave was granted to consider whether the High Court was in error in holding that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had not given any reason to support his finding that no proper Form was filed by Nasrullah, and, accordingly, determined his entitlement and transferred the house to him.
12. In the context of the leave granting order, we have examined the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and we find that he has given reasons for holding that the form was not properly filed and his conclusion is not only based on his visual examination of the form but also the fact that there was no entry of its receipt in the C.S.C.-2 Register maintained in the office for the registration of forms.
13. ' We have ourselves examined the departmental file containing the Form. It is undated and exists alongwith the receipt which is to be torn and given to the person filing it with the date and signature of the receiving officer. Therefore, there was no authentic evidence to show that it was filed in the ordinary course and it appears to have been surreptitiously placed on the record at a later stage. This too is confirmed by the letter of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Dera Ghazi Khan, that Nasrullah had not sought the transfer of the disputed house in the prescribed form. The further circumstance that he did not take any step to file any appeal against the rejection of the form until 1972 augments the fact that there was no such Form for disposal before the Settlement Authorities before the auction in the context of his knowledge that the property had been auctioned and the ejectment proceedings had commenced thereafter.
14. In this view of the matter, it is difficult to accept the reasons of the High Court that the form had been pending which needed disposal. As the property had been auctioned and a vested right .Had accrued to the auction-purchaser, it would be sheer injustice if he was deprived of his valuable right in the context of a dubious form existing on the record which is not established to have been filed before the auction date. The High Court was, accordingly, not justified to transfer the house to Nasrullah.
15. ' We would set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and allow the appeal with costs.