' NAIMUDDIN, J.---This appeal by leave is directed against the order of the High Court of Sindh, Sukkur Bench, dated 31st August, 1986 whereby appellant's Civil Revision Application, being Civil Revision No,30 of 1984, was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh at Sukkur, in the following circumstances:
2. The dispute relates to a residential premises built on the upper floor of shops bearing C.S. No,D-7 to D-10. Respondents 1-3 claimed through their predecessor-in-title Noor Muhammad, who was transferred Shop No,D-8 alongwith the disputed premises and such P.T.D. Was issued in his favour.
The appellant's case is that the said Noor Mohammad filed C.S. Form for Shop No,D-8 only which was transferred to him. Admittedly, Shops No,D-7, D-9 and D-10 were put to public auction which were purchased by one Syed Ali, who is not a party to these proceedings. He, however, claimed that alongwith the shops, he was also transferred the premises in question. Thus there were two claimants for the residential premises over the four shops. Noor Mohammad claimed that the premises was transferred to him alongwith Shop No,D-8. The said Syed Ali, on the other hand, claimed that the residential premises over the four shops was transferred to him.
3. However, in a Misc. Application made by Noor Mohammad he prayed that the entire premises including Shops Nos. D-7, D-8, D-9 and D-10, Gharibabad, Sukkur be allowed to remain transferred to him or, alternatively, the premises over the said shops be allowed to remain transferred to him.
On this application an office report was called by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner which was submitted on 8th January, 1962, material portion of which reads as follows: "The transferee of D-8 is a claimant and the occupant of upper residential portion which is an independent portion has not filed any form and is available. It should be transferred to Noor Mohammad and he should be charged adjustment price for the portion on the basis of (0) r 40 (upper)"
' Accordingly the residential premises was also transferred to Noor Mohammad and a P.T.D. Dated 29-12-1964 was issued in respect thereof in his favour.
4. In 1967, when Syed Ali came to know of such transfer in favour of Noor Mohammad, he moved Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sukkur by an application praying for cancellation of the said transfer in favour of Noor Mohammad but the application was dismissed. Then Syed All filed an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, which was also. Dismissed. Thereafter, Syed Ali filed a Revision under section 20(3) of the. Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 before the Settlement Commissioner, Karachi, who by the order dated 19th June, 1969 held that neither Noor Mohammad nor Syed All were entitled to the residential premises as Noor Mohammad had not applied for the same as he was not in possession thereof and Syed All was transferred only Shops Nos.D-7, D-9 and D-10, not the residential premises. The learned Settlement Commissioner accordingly ordered that the residential premises be disposed of through public auction.
5. It is at this stage that the appellant comes into the picture because' one Abdul Karim purchased the property in question at the auction and thereafter he associated the appellant and the property was transferred to him and a P.T.D. Was issued in his favour on 17-10-1969. Thereafter the appellant served a notice on Noor Mohammad and filed an ejectment case against Noor Mohammad and on his death brought Respondents 1-3 on record. Therefore on 25-11-1974 Respondents Nos.1-3 filed a suit, being Suit No,221 of 1974, against Abdul Karim and the appellant.
The suit was decreed by the Sr. Civil Judge, Sukkur, who found that after the issuance of P.T.D. In favour of Noor Mohammad, predecessor-in-title of respondents 1-3, the Settlement Authorities were not left with any jurisdiction to deal with the property in question.
6. An appeal against the judgment and decree of the Sr. Civil Judge Sukkur was preferred by the appellant but the same was dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. A revision against the same in the High Court of Sindh at Sukkur also met the same fate leading to the filing of the petition in which leave was granted by this Court to consider the contention that the P.T.D. In favour of Noor Mohammad on 29-12-1964, on which respondents 1-3 relied, was itself based on a wholly void order which was amenable to the jurisdiction of the relevant Settlement Authorities and was no hurdle in the way of the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Settlement Commissioner.
7. We have heard Mr.Maroof Ali Khan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M.G. Dastgir, learned counsel for respondents 1-3. The official respondents are not represented before us.
8. It was submitted by Mr. Maroof Ali Khan that the suit filed was time-barred. But this submission can be rejected outright for the reason that no such plea was taken or shown to have been taken before the trial Court or before the appellate Court or the revisional Court.
9. Now, I have two P.T.Ds, one issued in favour of Noor Mohammad on 29-12-1964 and the other issued in favour of appellant on 17-10-1969. It was submitted by Mi. Maroof Ali Khan that the appellant purchased the property in open auction and paid the full price and obtained the P.T.D.
Therefore, that transfer should be upheld as he cannot be made to suffer on account of any technical error. He further submitted that the cases relied upon by the trial Court are no more applicable as it has been held by this Court in a number of cases that the order of transfer, even after the issuance of P.T.D. Is subject to incident of appeal and revision. He placed reliance on Rahim Bakhsh v. Dost Muhammad (1982 SCM R 665), (ii) Muhammad Anwar Khan v. MA. Wasti, Settlement Commissioner, Peshawar and others (1975 SCMR 374) and (iii) Mst. Baqreedan v.
Muhammad Shafi and 7 others (1984 SCM R 474).
10. In the first named case this Court held that issuance of P.T.D. Does not take away appellate and revisional jurisdiction of the Settlement Authorities under sections 19 and 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, if the same had not yet been exercised. In the second named case the respondent purchased the house in auction and a P.T.D. Was issued in his favour. Subsequently, however, by negotiation, the house was transferred and a P.T.D. Was issued in petitioner's favour without giving respondent opportunity of being heard. On these facts it was held that the transfer could not adversely affect legal title acquired by respondent and entire proceedings subsequently followed were held to be ineffective. The question whether P.T.D. In petitioner's favour was issued in proper exercise of Settlement Commissioner's authority was held open to judicial scrutiny. It was further held that deletion of rule 7 of 1961 Rules does not foreclose jurisdiction of Settlement Authorities or the High Court to uncovering the cases of fraud or illegalities even after issuance of P.T.D. This case rather supports the case of the respondents. In the third case of Mst. Baqreedan (supra) a P.T.O. In respect of the disputed property was issued. It was held that issuance of P.T.O. Does not deprive aggrieved party of its right to appeal or revision under sections 19 and 20 of the Act of 1958. This case has no application at all. The other two cases relied upon are also distinguishable. In the case of Muhammad Anwar Khan (supra) a P.T.D. Was already issued when subsequently the property was transferred by negotiation and such a transfer was held to be open to judicial scrutiny. In the case in hand also the property had already been transferred and a P.T.D. Was issued when after more than two years on a Misc. Application, after dismissal of appeal in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the P.T.D. Was cancelled although no fraud or misrepresentation was alleged or committed. The property was transferred to the predecessor of the respondents with additional price and charges under the rules, not on the basis of possession. The case of Rahim Bux (supra) does support the proposition that issuance of P.T.D.
Does not take away the appellate and revisional jurisdiction if the same was not already exercised.
But appellate or revisional jurisdiction could not be exercised after more than two years, as in this case, except in case of fraud or misrepresentation, if the same was discovered later on. Finality is attached to every transaction and the revisional authority could not exercise jurisdiction at any time even after the issuance of P.T.D., more particularly when there is no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation and the residential premises was transferred by charging a high price according to the rules. There is however another decision of this Court in Syed Murid Hussain Shah v. Mufti Mohammad Yousaf Ali and others (1974 SCM R 8) which has not been noticed in the case of Rahim Bux (supra), wherein it was held that the property goes out of compensation pool after the issuance of P.T.D. And revisional jurisdiction of the Settlement Authority cannot be exercised in respect of the property after the issuance of P.T.D. It may be pertinent if the relevant observation is quoted here, which reads as follows: "It is a well-established 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, is no longer subject to the suo Motu revisional jurisdiction of the Settlement Commissioner or for that matter the Chief Settlement Commissioner."
' I respectfully follow this view.
' For all these reasons, I would dismiss this appeal leaving the parties, in the circumstances of the case, to bear their own costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.