MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J.---The facts are that the property known as Ahata Ram Ditta Mall, G.T.
Road, Lahore, is a Katri comprising several residential units. Muhammad Yaseen respondent, on the basis of his possession filed two C.H. Forms, one bearing No.1592, dated 9-I1-1959, and the other dated 21-6-1961 registered at Serial No.1473, for one of these residential units numbered as NE-VII- 2-S-6. One of these Forms fell for consideration before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, who by his order dated 14-7-1960, rejected it and also the Forms of others, namely, Ghulam Ghaus, Ayub Baig, Muhammad Yamin and Mst. Habiba Begum etc., who were applicants for other residential units, on the ground that despite notice none of them appeared before him he directed that the property would be put to auction.
2. The aforesaid order was set aside by' the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 10-10-1960, on appeal filed by Ghulam Ghaus, and the property applied for under C.H. Form transferred to him.
The respondent did not file any appeal against the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order aforesaid, but moved an application dated 27-7-1963 before him for disposal of his C.H. Form, who on 7-10-1963 noticed that the respondent's Form was lying undisposed of and forwarded the same to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Centre IV), to whom the case related, for passing orders thereon.
3. The record before us indicates that earlier on'21-3-1960, Muhammad Sultan, appellant No.3, made statement that he was not desirous of transfer of the property in his name and that his C.H.
Form be cancelled. Accordingly, the Settlement Inspector submitted a report to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for rejection of his Form, with which the Deputy Settlement Commissioner agreed. In pursuance of the order dated 7-10-1963, Mr. Shamsud Din Ahmad, who was the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Centre IV, took up the case; appellant No.3 appeared before him and reiterated on oath his previous statement that he was not interested in the transfer of the property applied for by him and surrendered his rights therein, in favour of the respondent.
4. Before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Centre IV, during the arguments, a contention was also raised that under order, dated 14-7-1960, the respondent's Form stood rejected, but this objection was turned down. In his opinion, the Additional Settlement Commissioner's order, dated 10-10-1960, had the effect of setting aside the said order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in its entirety and was for the benefit of all the applicants, who were aspirant for transfer of the property including the respondent. He found that out of eight, the latter was in possession of five portions of the property and was the only legitimate applicant in the field in respect of Property No.NE-VIII-2-S-6. Thus, by his order dated 26-11-1963, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred the whole of this property to the respondent. Subsequently, a P.T.O. Was also issued to him followed by P.T.D. Dated 4-10-1968. He then applied for demarcation of the property and submitted a plan to the D.S.C, which was approved by him after spot inspection. His order in this behalf is 7-10-1969.
5. While hearing the arguments of the parties, we have noticed that Muhammad Yamin, whose Form was rejected under Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order dated 14-7-1960, but did not assail it through any appeal, brought a revision petition from the Appellate order dated 10-10-1960 in favour of Ghulam Ghaus etc., which was allowed by the Settlement Commissioner and the case sent back to the Additional Settlement Commissioner, namely, Major M. Mukarram Khan, who disposed of the matter vide his order dated 11-6-1963. Though he was dealing with property No.NE- VIII-2-S-6 applied for Muhammad Yamin, yet on perusal of the report of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, in which there was a reference to order dated 14-7-1960 rejecting the Forms of the respondent and others, he made an observation that to avoid dislocation of the occupants of property No.NE-VIII-2-S-6, including appellant No.2, the same might be transferred to them according to their possession provided they submitted their Forms.
6. Khalid Mahmud, appellant Nod, is the son of Mst. Hamida Begum, who dies in the year 1965; one Muhammad Hussain, who was the transferee of House No.NE-VIII-2-S-2 surrendered his rights therein in her favour. On 18-7-1973, appellant No.1 complained to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner that a staircase earlier used by him as an access to the upper portion transferred to his mother was demolished by the Municipal Corporation and the respondent obstructed its reconstruction. Appellants Nos. 3 and 4 also moved similar applications. The respondent resisted their claim. He urged that Hamida Begum was transferee of, another house falling in a different street and the staircase formed part of the, property No.NE-VIII-2-S-6 transferred to him. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner inspected the spot and maintained that vide order dated 7-10- 1969 property No.NE-VIII-2-S-6 transferred to the respondent had been correctly demarcated and the appellant could not be allowed to use stair-case of the property of which his mother was not transferee. Consequently, under his order dated 18-8-1973 he rejected the applications of the appellants.
7. The four appellants before us jointly preferred two separate revisions, one bearing No.133/LHR/1973, from the order dated 26-11-1963 and 7-10-1969, rendered by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner; in the other revision which was registered at No.150/73, alongwith these two orders, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order dated 18-8-1973 was also brought under challenge.
These revision petitions were dismissed on 27-5-1974 by Khan Azmat Ullah Khan, Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, by two separate orders. In dismissing the first revision he held that the appellants did not figure anywhere in the litigation culminating in the orders dated 26-11-1963 and 7-10-1969 passed long ago. As regards the dismissal of the second revision, he upheld the view expressed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner that House No.NE- VIII-2-S-6, settled on the respondent, was altogether a different house and further observed that the properties were transferred to both the parties with exactitude, which no longer formed part of the compensation pool, therefore, the Settlement authorities became functus officio.
8. The appellants thereafter invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to assail the validity of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order dated 26-11-1963, 7-10-1969, 18-8-1973 and the Settlement Commissioner's order dated 27-5-1974. They questioned the entitlement of the respondent for transfer of property Unit No.NE-VIII-2-S-6, but their contention did not, prevail with the learned Single Judge, as on consideration of their cases on merits, none of them was found to have a valid claim to the property. With regard to appellant No.1, the High Court upheld the D.S.C's. Order dated 18-8-1973, and the subsequent rejection of his revision by the Settlement Commissioner. The learned Single Judge also referred to the litigation on the civil side between the respondent and appellant No.1, resulting in decree for permanent injunction against the latter, restraining him from using the staircase. As regards appellant No.2, she was found to have accepted herself as a tenant under the respondent in the proceedings before the Rent Controller.
Likewise, the claim of appellant No.3, was also turned down. In this behalf the statement made by him surrendering his rights to the respondent, heavily weighed with the High Court. The High Court also noticed that the father of appellant No.4 submitted L.H. Form for Property No.NE-VIII-2-S-8, which was not transferred to him, and that he was ultimately evicted therefrom by the transferee of that property. Thus, after examining the various orders passed by the Settlement Authorities, the learned Single Judge did not discover any illegality in the transfer of the property in question to the respondent. In this view of the, matter, the writ petition was dismissed on 26-2-1984. This dismissal is under challenge before us.
9. Leave to appeal was granted to consider `the legal effect of the order of Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 11-6-1963 as to the entitlements of the occupants of the different units of the disputed property, particularly those who had duly applied for transfer.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. In order to evaluate the entitlement of each of the appellants we have thoroughly gone through the record before us.
Evidently, all the appellants are pitched against the respondent, on whom Unit No.NE-VIII-2-S-6 was permanently settled way back in the year 1968. The argument advanced on behalf of the appellants, in support of this appeal, is two-fold. Firstly, the Additional Settlement Commissioner's order dated 11-6-1963 should have been implemented, and property transferred to the occupants thereof, to avoid their dislocation. Secondly the Deputy Settlement Commissioner rejected the respondent's C.H. Form on 14-7-1960; he never filed any appeal or revision against that order; it, therefore, attained finality, and it was not open to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to have subsequently passed order dated 26-11-1963, transferring the property in dispute to the respondent.
11. We are not persuaded by these submissions. The resume of the facts already enumerated in the earlier part of this judgment amply demonstrates that the claim of appellant No.1 was confined only to the use of the staircase, which was held to be a part of Property No. NE-VIII-2-S-6 and not of No. NE-VIII-2-S--2 transferred to his mother and having an access from a different street. He or for that matter his mother was never in the picture when orders dated 26-11-1963 and 7-10-1969 were made by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. We entirely agree with the view taken by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, in his order dated 18-8-1973, which was confirmed by the Settlement Commissioner, and the High Court justifiably declined to interfere therewith in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
12. While dealing with the case of appellant No.2, we have examined her C.H. As well as N.C.H. Form.
She was never an applicant for the property Unit No.NE-VIII-2-S-6. It, therefore, could not be transferred to her. It has been noticed that appellant No.3 himself relinquished his claim to the property and surrendered his rights to the respondent. This is also borne out from his sworn affidavit dated 1-10-1964, which rinds mention in the impugned judgment. It appears to us that while passing order dated 11-6-1963 this aspect of the case was not present to the mind of the Additional Settlement Commissioner. In order to scrutinise the eligibility of Muhammad Younus, appellant No.4, who banks on the entitlement of his father, namely, Ghulam Muhammad, we have perused the L.H. Form submitted by the latter. It is in respect of a house situate in Street No.2, Ahata Ram Ditta Mal, near Railway Market, G.T. Road, Lahore. Obviously, he never applied for property Unit No.NE-VIII-2-S-6.
13. It will be seen that the Additional Settlement Commissioner, who rendered order, dated 11-6- 1963, which is the main edifice of the rights asserted by the appellants, was dealing with the dispute between Muhammad Yamin and Ghulam Ghaus etc: relating to Property No.NE-VIII-2-S-8.
The record before us does not indicate that the respondent was arraigned as a party to the appeal disposed of by him. Anyhow, pursuant to the observations appearing in the order dated 11-6-1963 heavily relied, upon by the learned counsel for the appellants property could be transferred to the occupants, only if the relevant Forms were filed by them. It has, however, been clearly established that none of them applied for Unit No.NE-VIII-2-S-6. There was thus, no occasion to transfer this property or any part thereof to any of the appellants. In this respect their claim is wholly untenable.
14. It is not conceivable that, in the circumstances of the case, how the argument that order, dated 14-7-1960, attained finality, can in any manner advance the cause of the appellants. The reason being that they have failed to substantiate their any right to Property No. NE-VIII-2-S-6, and thus have no locus standi to object to its transfer to the respondent. It seems to us that he was never associated with the proceedings, wherein order dated 14-7-1970 was made. In this connection, his learned counsel has drawn our attention to a notice issued by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, requiring the occupants of the property to appear before him on 14-7-1960. Only the names of Ghulam Ghaus, Abdul Ghafoor, Ghulam Muhammad, Ghulam Abbas, Talib Hussain and Habiba Begum are mentioned in it. The name of the respondent does not figure in this notice, which goes to show that he was not given by any intimation by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner of the date of hearing, and thus was condemned unheard. In this view of the matter the order dated 14-7-1960 qua the respondent stands denuded of legal sanction, After perusal of the record, we have gained an impression that he was not aware of this order when lie applied to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for disposing of his C.H. Form; in pursuance whereof his case was processed; and the property in dispute transferred to him by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner under his order dated 26-11-1963. With which, upon the facts obtaining on the record, no fault can be found. The subsequent orders passed in favour of the respondent on the footing of this order also do not p suffer from any infirmity. The view taken by the High Court is correct and in conformity with law. There is no illegality or a defect on merits in the impugned judgment to call for interference by this Court.
This appeal having been found without merit, is hereby dismissed with costs.