1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C J.---This appeal through leave of the Court is directed; against the dismissal by the High Court of appellant's writ petition which had arisen out of an Urban Settlement matter.
2. ' The facts and circumstances noted for the grant of leave to appeal are `that the evacuee interest in Dilshad Talkies, Pakpattan, was auctioned on 23rd of May, 1960, which was purchased by the appellant for Rs,61,000 and its possession was delivered to him on 8th of June, 1962. This bid was, however, confirmed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 30th July, 1962. The evacuee owner, Lakshman Das, had built this cinema with the funds of Mian Noor Muhammad, whose legal representatives are respondents 2 to 7 and Mumtaz Muhammad Khan Maneka, respondent No,8, herein and the share of these persons was 1/3rd each in the enterprise. A P.T.D. Was issued in favour of the petitioner on 7th of May, 1965 in which his interest was shown as 1/3rd in the land, building and machinery. However, at the time of sanctioning of the mutation it was discovered that the land exclusively belonged to the evacuee owner and, therefore, the petitioner applied to the Additional Settlement Commissioner, for the rectification of the share in the land who referred the matter to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sahiwal, for verification and on the receipt of his reply, the Additional Settlement Commissioner rectified the error in the P.T.D. By his order, dated 25th of August, 1965. His interest in the land was thus shown as 100% instead of 1/3rd as originally mentioned. Against this order the respondents appealed to the Settlement Commissioner on 26th April, 1972, who accepted it by order dated 22nd of July, 1972. The petitioner, thereupon, filed the above-cited writ petition on 24th of May, 1973, but did not succeed'.
3. Leave to appeal was granted to examine the contention that on the analogy of section 152 of the C.P.C. There was inherent jurisdiction in the authorities concerned to rectify the mistake in preparing the original P.T.D. And hence the High Court erred in the law in holding that the P.T.D.
4. Could not be amended by the Additional Settlement Commissioner as he had no power on that date to do so. And further that the share of the land was not specified in the original P.T.D. But only 1/3rd share was mentioned in the building which was allowed against the land and machinery and accordingly it was not a case of amendment of the P.T.D. But one of rectification as the other respondents were not co-sharers in the land and, therefore, the bar as to finality could not be pressed into service.
5. ' We have examined the original P.T.D. There is no denying the fact that at the time of its preparation the functionary concerned was certain that the share of the appellant in the land also was only 1/3rd. The manner in which this share was mentioned leaves no doubt in this behalf. The next question which was noted for examination is: whether the Additional Settlement Commissioner had no authority to rectify a mistake.
6. ' Before examining the other question regarding the authority of the Additional Settlement Commissioner it is necessary, as argued by the learned counsel to examine the real controversy in issue; as according to him, the technical approach to the case at this stage will not he of much advantage to either party. Accordingly we examined the extent of right and interest of the evacuee in the property in question which was purchased by the appellant in auction. On our asking learned counsel took us through the relevant material in this behalf. After perusal of the same there is no question, even of any doubt that at the time of auction the property put up for the auction for which the appellant had offered bid, and for which he had also made payment was 1/3rd of the property which included only 1/3rd of the land and not 100% of the land.
7. ' Hence for several reasons the appellant has no case. Firstly, what was offered for his purchase did not include more than 1/3rd of the land; what he offered as a bid to purchase did not include more than 1/3rd of the land. Similarly what the appellant paid for was 1/3rd of the land in addition to 1/3rd of the other right and interest of the evacuee in the property in question. Accordingly after hearing the learned counsel, at some length, we are satisfied that the appellant having purchased only 1/3rd of the entire property right which included only 1/3rd of the land, his writ petition merited to be dismissed on this ground alone. We, therefore, find no justification for interference. This appeal, accordingly, is dismissed. There shall he no order as to costs.