' MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, J.-The dispute in this case relates to Bungalow No, 62, The Mall, Peshawar Gantt., which is an evacuee property. It was allotted to the petitioner, who is a local resident, in the year 1947. In February 1966, he was ejected as the premises was needed for accommodating some Government official. However, he succeeded in seeking restoration of possession after three months. In 1952, the petitioner went abroad for further study leaving his sister in possession of the northern portion. Subsequently, on 6-3-1965, the southern portion was occupied by Flight-U. M. A. Sayed. Soon thereafter the petitioner's sister was ejected from the northern portion by the Settlement Commissioner. She succeeded in appeal ard the ejectment order was set aside. However, her portion was requisitioned by the Military Authorities in 1956 and even though subsequently de-requisitioned, she was never put back into possession. On 10-7-1959, Fazal Ali respondent No, 7, father of Flight-Lt. M. A. Sayed a resident of Karachi, applied for the transfer of the Bungalow on the basis of the allotment of his son. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, vide order dated 30-5-1960, transferred the Bungalow in favour of Fazal Ali to whom P. T.
0. Was issued on 15-6-1960.
2. The petitioner returned from abroad in 1966 and having slept for about four years submitted an application dated 21-12-1970 to the Minister for Rehabilitation requesting for the transfer of the half portion of the Bungalow to him which was forwarded to the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner who called for a report from the Deputy Settlement Commissioner alongwith parawise comments, which was submitted on 25-8-1971. Since in the meantime, the Province of West Pakistan had been disintegrated, the petitioner submitted a fresh application to the Chief'
Settlement Commissioner, Peshawar on 7-11-1972. This was followed by yet another application dated 30-11-1972 submitted to the Additional Settlement Commissioner, which was forwarded to the Chief Settlement Commissioner alongwith the detailed report which in fact had been called for on the petitioner's previous application, dated 7-11-1972. On receipt of the report, the Chief Settlement Commissioner, vide his order dated 3-1-1973, condoned the delay in the filing of the L. H.
Form and forwarded the case to the Settlement Commissioner for re-examination under section 20 of the Compensation and Rehabilitation Act. The latter declined to reopen the case in exercise of his suo inotu revisional powers and the petitioner was informed accordingly. He, however, submitted yet another application to the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 30-3-1973, which was again forwarded to the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner for consideration and disposal but was returned by the latter. Having remained undeterred the petitioner made one last attempt and submitted yet another application to the Chief Settlement Commissioner which as usual was forwarded to the Settlement Commissioner, who vide his order dated 26-9-1973 refused to review the order of his predecessor and returned the application. It was in these circumstances that having persistently failed before the Settlement authorities, the petitioner tiled Writ Petition No, 708 of 1973 in the Peshawar High Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 4-4-1974, from which cave to appeal has been sought in this petition.
3. In support of the petition, learned counsel contended on the basis if the provision contained in section 9(3) and section 20(3) of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Act XXVIII of 1958, that all functionaries being under the general superintendence and control of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the Settlement Commissioner was under an obligation to comply with the direction of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. This is an untenable proposition. By no stretch of imagination can the exercise of general superintendence and control be extended to the forced compliance of illegal order. The Chief Settlement Commissioner having himself been denuded of his provisional powers could not direct the Settlement Commissioner to re-open a case decided ten years before contrary to law and then obligingly make a fresh order in accordance with the good wishes of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Throughout this litigation, there is no reference to allegations of fraud and the exercise of provisional powers is invariably subjected to reasonable limitation. Being a local, the petitioner could not take precedence over a claimant. The order of transfer in favor of respondent No, 7 was never challenged in appeal. In spite of his resourcefulness, the petitioner slept over the matter for several years and even when woke up, did not have recourse to proper legal remedy. His attempts to succeed through a backdoor method were bound to fail and his writ petition was rightly dismissed by the High Court.
4. The petition is patently devoid of force and is dismissed.