1. MUHAMMAD GUL, J.-This petition for special leave is from the order of a Letters Patent Bench of the Lahore High Court dated 31-1-72 maintaining that of a learned Single Judge of that Court by which transfer by "earmarking" of property No. 560/1/1286, Paris Road, Sialkot, known as Pillar Palace (hereinafter called the property in dispute), in favour of Mufti Mohammad Yousaf A.I, respondent No. 1 herein, was upheld in the circumstances set out below:- The petitioner, Syed Murid Hussain Shah, a local, is in occupation of a major portion of the property in dispute as its allottee. Respondent No. 1 a claimant, was in possession of house No. 510-11/1092, Mohallah Water Works, Sialkot, which was transferred to him on his C. H. Form vide D.S.C.'s order dated 22-10-59. On 4-11-59 he applied to the D.S.C. That the house transferred to him was insufficient for his requirements and therefore he sought permission for its surrender and further that the same may be transferred to his sons Arshad Saleem and Azhar Naeem, each of whom was a claimant in his own right. The D.S.C. Acceded to this dual request and P.T.O. For the house instead of being issued in favour of respondent No. 1 was issued in the name of his sons. Later P. T. D. Was also issued in their favour.
2. Respondent No. 1 then participated in the earmarking, scheme and was successful in drawing lot for the property in dispute to his favour. One Mr. Masud Ahmad Ansari, then Senior Civil Judge posted at Sialkot, who was occupying a portion of the property in dispute, unsuccessfully challenged its transfer in favour of petitioner No. 1 before the Settlement Authorities at all levels.
3. Then he filed a Writ Petition No. 474-R of 1961, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. That decision was maintained by a Letters Patent Bench. Ultimately the matter came before the Court in C. P. S. L. A. No. 164 of 1961, which too was dismissed. Throughout this contentious litigation, Mr. Masud Ahmad Ansar's plea was that respondent No. 1 having secured the transfer of the house No. 510-11/1092 in Mohallah Water Works of which he was in actual physical possession became ineligible to participate in the earmarking scheme nor could he validly surrender that house to make himself eligible for participation in the "earmarking" scheme. It was further pleaded that the transfer of house in Mohallah Water Works after its purported surrender by respondent No. 1 in favour of his two sons virtually amounted to a review by the D. S, C. Of his own earlier order dated 2Z-10-59 which he was not competent to do except with the prior approval of the Additional Settlement Commissioner. These pleas were repelled through--out by the Settlement Authorities, the High Court and this Court also. While dismissing petition for special leave, this Court observed:- "That Yusaf A.I was entitled to participate in the earmarking scheme is also clear, for the earlier transfer to him of the other house was cancelled at his own request, as he had withdrawn his application in form C. H. Before the date of transfer order. The fact that the said house has now been transferred to his sons on the basis of their own claim is not a sufficient reason for holding that the previous final order of the transfer had been reviewed."
4. On the dismissal of the petition for special leave, the transfer of the property in dispute in favour of respondent No. 1 was confirmed.
5. On the final conclusion of the first round of litigation initiated by Mr. Masud Ahmad Ansari, the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide memo. No. 1398-URB/69 dated 30-4-69 directed the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore Division, to take up the case relating to property No. 510-11/1092 (situated in Mohallah Water Works) in suo motu revision under sub--section (3) of section 20 of Act XXVIII of 1958. According to the memo., the transfer of the house in Mohallah Water Works in favour of the two sons of respondent No. 1 who were not in its possession prior to 20-12-58 was not legal and that the application in that behalf by respondent No. 1 was made on plain paper instead of being made on non---judicial paper. The memo. Went on to say that the issuance of P. T. D. In favour of the sons of respondent No. 1 was no bar to the exercise of power of suo motu revision. Pursuant to the above direction, the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore Division, gave notice to respondent No. 1 under section 20 (3) of the Act to appear before him to show cause as to why the said order, be not revised. The Settlement Commissioner by order dated 10-4-70 not only cancelled the transfer of the house situate in Mohallah Water Works in favour of the sons of respondent No. 1 but curiously enough also cancelled the transfer of the property in dispute in favour of respondent No. 1, although no notice was issued to him in that behalf.
6. It appears that the petitioner in the meantime had also succeeded in securing the transfer of excess land measuring 5 kanals 10 marals comprised in the property in dispute. This was challenged by respondent No. 1 and this matter had also come before the Settlement Commissioner in revision. By the same order the Settlement Commissioner also confirmed the transfer of excess land in favour of the petitioner.
7. Respondent No. 1 then filed Writ Petition No. 522-R of 1970 to call in question the order of the Settlement Commissioner in so far as it cancelled the transfer of the property in dispute in his favour. By another Writ Petition (No. 695-R of 1970) respondent No. 1 questioned the transfer of excess land in favour of the petitioner. Both these writ petitions were heard and disposed of by a learned Single Judge who vide order dated 7-9-71 accepted both the petitions and restored the transfer of the property in dispute in favour of respondent No. 1, but remanded the case relating to the transfer of excess land in favour of the petitioner to the Settlement Commissioner for fresh decision on merits. The petitioner filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in so far as it restored the transfer of the property in dispute in favour of respondent No. 1. This was dismissed in limine vide order dated 31-1-72 inter alia because of this Court's decision in C. P. S. L. A. 164 of 1961.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued before us that the petitioner not being a party to the earlier proceeding initiated by Mr. M. A. Ansari, was not bound by any order made in that litigation and that the petitioner was claiming transfer of the portion of the property in dispute in his own right by virtue of his possession under a valid allotment in his favour. The argument however overlooks the fact that the earlier litigation also related to the property in dispute to which the Settlement Authority was a party. In that litigation the transfer of the property in dispute in favour of respondent No. 1 was ultimately upheld by this Court, on a point which was plainly a point of law and a decision on a law point by this Court, under the Constitution is binding on all Courts and authorities in Pakistan, it was highly improper for the Chief Settlement Commissioner to have directed the review of the matter suo motu notwithstanding the earlier decision by this Court.
9. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioner was frank enough to concede that the notice issued to respondent No. 1 was confined only to the transfer of the house situate in Mohallah Water Works and did not relate to the transfer of the property in dispute in favour of respondent No. 1. That being the admitted position, the order of the Settlement Commissioner in so far as it purported) to set aside the transfer of the property in dispute, was wholly devoid of validity.
10. Finally it was also overlooked that subsequent to the surrender by respondent No. 1 of the house situate in Mohallah Water Works, Sialkot, P. T. D. Had also been issued in favour of his two sons. It is a well-establish--ed proposition that with the issuance of P. T. D. In relation to an evacuee property, it ipso facto goes out of the compensation pool and as such, no longer subject to the suo motu revisional jurisdiction of the Settlement Commissioner or for that matter the Chief Settlement Commissioner.
11. For the aforesaid reasons the petition is dismissed.