1. MUHAMMAD GUL, J.-The dispute in this case relates to the transfer of evacuee shop No. P/219, Ward No. 5, Bhawana Bazar, Lyallpur. The initial contest was between one Barkat A.I, a claimant allottee but not in possession of the shop, and Ata Muhammad respondent No. 2 herein also a claimant, who had been in its unauthorised possession since about the year 1952. Each of them separately applied for its transfer. The, Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred the shop to Barkat A.I because besides being a claimant, he was its allottee. On appeal by Ata Muhammad, the transfer in favour of Barkat A.I was set aside by the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the case was remanded for a fresh decision on merits. On remand, another Deputy Settlement Commissioner after inquiry in the case held that Ata Muhammad had filed his form for transfer of another shop, namely, No. 238/W-7, but with the connivance of the staff had changed its number in his form, to that of the shop in dispute. His form was therefore rejected. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner also rejected the form of Barkat A.I because in spite of the allotment in his favour he had never been in possession of the shop, nor he had taken any steps to secure its possession so as to become eligible for its transfer under Notification No. 2099, dated 6-9-1960 issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Having thus non-suited both the applicants, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner ordered the disposal of the shop by unrestricted public auction. This order is dated 16-4-1964. Barkat A.I did not pursue the matter any further, and therefore, was excluded from the contest.
2. The above order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was unsuccess--fully challenged by respondent No. 2 in appeal and revision before the Settlement Authorities and then by means of a writ petition in the High Court. Eventually the shop was sold by auction to Imam-ud-Din, petitioner No. 1 for Rs. 46,000. The auction was confirmed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 17- 12-1966. Having paid all the dues, P. T. D. Was also issued in favour of the petitioner No. I on 2-2-1967.
3. Later, by a registered sale-deed dated 8-7-1967, he sold one-half share in the shop to Fazal Muhammad petitioner No. 2.
4. Aggrieved by the order in revision by the Settlement Commissioner, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 98/11 of 1973, on 31-1-1973, which was admitted for full hearing on 27-3-1973 by a learned Single Judge. This is still pending adjudication in the High Court.
5. Aggrieved .By the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferring the shop to respondent No. 2 the petitioners filed another writ petition being No. 325/11 of 1973. This was, however, dismissed in limine by the same learned Judge who had earlier admitted Writ Petition No. 98/11 of 1973, on the short ground that the impugned order by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was subject to the incidence of appeal and revision to the higher Settlement Authorities and, therefore, could not be challenged in writ jurisdiction. This order is dated 20-4-1973.
6. The petitioners seek special leave against the above order of the learned Single Judge and it is submitted by their learned counsel that the learned Single Judge having admitted Writ Petition No. 98/11 of 1973, for full hearing, ought to have also admitted Writ Petition No. 325/11 of 1973, and disposed of both the writ petitions together, the parties and the property in dispute being the same in both the writ petitions.
7. The ratio decidendi of the impugned order is hardly open to any objection, for it is not controverted that the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferring the shop to respondent No. 2 is subject to the incidence of appeal and revision to the higher Settlement Authorities. We, are, however, of the view that it was unnecessary to file the second writ petition because the impugned order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner A dated 25-1-1973 was wholly consequential to the remand order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 7-10-1972 which still remains under challenge in the High Court in Writ Petition No. 93/11 of 1973. If that writ petition succeeds, all subsequent orders including the transfer of the shop in favour of respondent No. 2 shall Ipso facto stand nullified. Being in the nature of the consequential to the remand order dated 7-10-1972, they cannot stand independent of that order. On that view of the matter, therefore, there is no case for interference by this Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed.