1. ' HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-This is a petition for the review of an order of this Court passed on the 8th of March, 1974, dismissing petition for special leave to appeal.
2. ' The dispute related to a single-storied building situated in Ward No, 4 of Lyallpur city comprising of a shop opening on the Chiniot Bazar and a residential portion of two small rooms behind the shop opening on to Street No, 7.
3. ' The petitioner, who is a local, was a tenant of the residential portion from before Independence. He filed an LH Form for the transfer of the residential portion, and the respondent No, 4 filed a CS Form for the transfer the shops.
4. ' The Additional Deputy Settlement Commissioner eliminated the petitioner on the ground that he was a well-to-do local who had inherited properties from his father and was, therefore, not entitled to the transfer of the residential portion, even though the value thereof be less than Rs, 10,000, under the law, as it then stood, and transferred the entire property to the said respondent No, 4.
5. ' An appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner by the petitioner failed on the same grounds, but he placed the residential portion on the auction list by his order of the 5th of November, 1960. Against this order, the petitioner did not take any further steps, but the respondent No, 4 filed a revision on the 10th of November, 1960.
6. ' During the pendency of the above revision before the Settlement Commissioner, the Chief Settlement Commissioner issued two memoranda, namely, Nos. 3033-P1-(49)-Reh/61 dated the 27th of July, 1961, and the 9th of August, 1961, withdrawing earlier memoranda Nos. 6027 Comp.
7. Reh/59 and 7614 Comp. Reh/59 dated the 11th November, 1959 and the 26th of November, 1959 respectively, removing the conditions which required the evaluation to be made in a particular way and the locals to file a declaration that they have no houses of their own and were not in a position to build houses for themselves. The above memoranda purported to remove the restrictions with retrospective effect and to authorize competent Settlement Authorities to review orders already issued in such cases where necessary, in accordance with the law, on the application of the aggrieved party.
8. ' Relying on these memoranda, the petitioner, on the 22nd of September, 1961, applied to the Additional Settlement Commissioner for the review of his order of the 5th of November, 1960, without noticing that, according to the law as laid down in section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act itself, a review was not competent from an order against which an appeal or a petition for revision had already been preferred and that an Additional Settlement Commissioner could not review an order passed by his predecessor-in-office without first obtaining the sanction of the Settlement Commissioner for the area concerned.
9. ' The Additional Settlement Commissioner, it appears, sought the permission of the Settlement Commissioner to review the order of the 5th of November, 1960, passed by his predecessor; but before any such permission was received, the Settlement Commissioner, on the 13th of February, 1962 took up and disposed of the revision petition filed by the respondent No,
4. The same was accepted ana the entire property was transferred to the said respondent No, 4 as one unit.
10. ' On coming to know of this order, the petitioner on the very next day, i,e,, the 14th of February, 1962, filed another application for the review of the order of the 13th of February, 1962, alleging that no notice of the revision proceedings had been given to him. This was rejected on the 2nd of April, 1962, on the ground that, since the respondent was a claimant-displaced person and the property had been treated as one unit, the local could not get any share.
11. ' The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court through a constitutional petition but failed both before the learned Judge in Chambers as well as in Letters Patent appeal. His petition for special leave was also dismissed by this Court on the 8th of March, 1974 mainly on the ground that since he had not challenged the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner passed on the 5th of November 1960. That order had become final and it could not be reviewed thereafter.
12. Review is now sought on the ground that this observation is incorrect, because, the memoranda, to which reference has already been made earlier, expressly allowed review. We find no substance in this contention, because, the instructions allowed the review only "in accordance with the law" and, as already pointed out, according to the law applicable, namely, section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, a review was not competent from an order which had already been challenged in appeal or revision.
13. ' If authority is needed for this proposition, one may refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (1) where it has been pointed out that proviso (c) to subsection (1) of section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act of 1958 excludes the jurisdiction to review where an appeal or revision had been preferred. It is clear, therefore, that the review filed was incompetent.
14. ' Having heard the learned counsel appearing in support of this review petition, we are now satisfied that the order of this Court not only suffers from no defect apparent on the face of the record but is in every way just and equitable. The learned counsel's contention that the review sought of the order of the Settlement Commissioner passed on the 13th of February 1962, which also had become incompetent after the introduction of Ordinance II of 1962 on the 13th of January, 1962, could nevertheless be treated as a revision, is not tenable, for, the petitioner himself having invoked the review jurisdiction cannot now turn round and be allowed to say that that jurisdiction was not available to the Settlement Commissioner.
15. ' For these reasons, this review petition is dismissed as being wholly misconceived with costs to the appearing respondent.
16. PLD 1964 SC 829