ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.--The petitioners seek to challenge the judgment dated 22-12-1985 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, in this petition for leave to appeal.
2. The facts, in brief, are that property bearing No,M-42-A, Lawrence Road, Rawalpindi Cantt. Is in occupation of respondent No,1. It was allotted to it in the year 1955. The petitioners in a public auction held on 22-2-1960 purchased the said shop for a sum of Rs,2,75,000. The P.T.O. Was issued in favour of the petitioners and two others. After the transfer of the shop to the petitioners, the respondent No,1 started paying rent upto March 1961. On 3-5-1960 a Press Note was issued by the Additional Settlement Commissioner with the approval of the Central Government in exercise of the powers under Section 10(b) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) authorising locals in possession of Industrial concerns to the transfer of such property. The respondent No,1 moved an application on 2-3-1961 for the transfer of this shop on the basis of the aforesaid Press Note. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner passed an order, on 29-3-1961 accepting the review petition of respondent No,1, cancelled the transfer made to the petitioner and ordered the property to be transferred to respondent No,1 for a sum of Rs,1,35,000. The petitioner challenged this order by way of an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner Rawalpindi, who accepted the same by order dated 27-5-61 and set aside the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The respondent No,1 filed a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner against the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner who rejected the same on 13-7-61. The respondent No,1 then preferred a second revision under Section 20(2) of the Act before the Chief Settlement Commissioner who accepted the aforesaid revision and set aside the auction and transfer made in favour of the petitioner and held respondent No,1 entitled to the transfer of the shop. The petitioner filed a constitution petition in the West Pakistan High Court, Lahore., against the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 24-4-1962. A learned Single Judge of the High Court accepted the same on 6-3-1967. The respondent No,1 preferred an Intra-Court Appeal against the said judgment and a Division Bench of Lahore High Court at Rawalpindi accepted the appeal and sei aside the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge.
3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent No,1 moved an application on 2-3..61 for the first time agitating against the disposal of the property in a public .Auction whereas the application should have reached the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by 21- 5-1960. This contention of the petitioners is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents and it was argued that the application was already pending, therefore, the petitioner was not entitle to the transfer of the property in question in public auction.
4. Lengthy arguments have been addressed by the learned counsel for the parties. Both the learned counsel placed reliance on various judgments of the superior Courts in support of their respective contentions. The points raised need authoritative pronouncement. The points for consideration are:-
(1) Whether the property which was disposed of in favour of the petitioner in public auction was available property and could be transferred to the respondent Nod.
(2) Whether the provisions of Paragraph 20 of the Settlement Scheme No,1 created any rig:ht in favour of the respondent.
(3) Whether the auction in favour of the petitioner was violative of Para 20 of Chapter 3 of Settlement Scheme No,1 and only respondent No,1 was eligible to the transfer of property as it converted it into an Industrial concern.
Leave is granted. Security Rs,10,000.
5. The appeal to be mat le ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to file such additional c locuments as they may desire. The record of the cast may also be summoned.