' This order shall dispose of W.P. No,473-R/81 titled Froze Din and others v. Administrator R.P. And W.P.
No,583-R/81 titled `Ghulam Rasool. v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner and another' which arise out of the same order dated 23-6-1981 passed by Administrator Residual Property, Lahore.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that property No,S.I.45-S-21 Bhagwan Bazar, Gowalmandi, Lahore which consists of a residential portion alongwith five small shops was transferred in its entirety to Siraj Din deceased, predecessor-in-interest of Feroze Din and another petitioner by order dated 6-12-1959 passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. Legal heirs of Siraj Din obtained an order of ejectment against Ghulam Rasool who is a writ petitioner in W.P. No,583-R/81 and allegedly got him ejected who allegedly broke open the locks of one of the shops of the petitioners. As a result whereof criminal case under section 448, P.P.C. Was registered against him.
3. Respondent filed a Form for transfer of the shop in his possession under. Settlement Scheme No,VIII on 12-10-1973. This Form was rejected by the D.S.C. Vide order dated 28-3-1974 on the ground that entire property has since been transferred to Siraj Din predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners as far back as on 6-12-1959, hence the case cannot be re-opened and the shop cannot be transferred to Ghulam Rasool. This order was challenged in revision by Ghulam Rasool before learned Settlement Commissioner, Lahore, who dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 13- 4-1974. Without disclosing dismissal of the aforementioned revision petition, Ghulam Rasool again challenged the same order before another Settlement Commissioner, Farid Kot House, Lahore, by way of a revision petition, but this revision petition was also dismissed vide order dated 9-6-1976.
Subsequently Ghulam Rasool again filed an application for transfer of the shop on 26-12-1978 under R.P. Scheme before Deputy Administrator R.P. Centre, III Farid Kot House, Lahore. This application was rejected by the Deputy Administrator vide, order dated 13-12-1980 on the ground- that property in question having already been transferred to Siraj Din predecessor-in-interest of the, petitioners, the same cannot be transferred to. Ghulam Rasool, respondent. The respondent challenged the order dated 13-12-1980 passed by Deputy Administrator R.P. Centre, Lahore before respondent No,1, who dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 23-6-1981 on the round that the respondent is not entitled to the transfer of the shop in question. However, an observation was made in the order that five shops were not transferred to Siraj Din deceased alongwith the residential house, hence the same should be disposed of through open auction. This order has been challenged both by the petitioners and the respondents by way of separate writ petitions. In the titled writ petition, the petitioners are aggrieved of the findings rendered in the order with regard to the transfer of shops in favour of Siraj Din whereas in Writ Petition No,583-R/81, the respondent in the titled petition has claimed transfer of the shop in question under R.P. Scheme.
4. In support of the writ petition, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has raised the following contentions:--
(i) That the disputed property is a full unit including the shops which was transferred in favour of Siraj Din, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners as back as on 6-12-1959. Illegal resumption order was also set aside by D.S.C. Vide order dated 13-12-1980. Transfer in favour of the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest had never been challenged and had attained finality. Form filed by respondent seeking transfer of the shop in his possession was rejected up to the level of learned Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner vide orders dated 13-4-1974 and 9-6-1976. Therefore, on the general principles of res judicata, the respondent No,1 had no jurisdiction to re-open the matter and hold that the shops have not been transferred to the petitioners and should be disposed of through open auction;
(ii) that the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner had jurisdiction to transfer the entire property including the shops which in fact were a part of the residential house but were being used as shops temporarily. This transfer having become final and the claim of the respondent having been rejected up to the level of the Settlement Commissioner, the respondent was left with no jurisdiction to order that the shops having not been transferred alongwith the house should be put to acution, particularly when the revision petition filed by the respondent has been dismissed and the order passed by the Deputy Administrator R.P. Has been upheld;
(iii) that the respondent, having been held to be not entitled to the transfer of shops which are a part of the residential house by the highest forums in the hierarchy of the Settlement Department, has no locus standi to file the writ petition and to claim transfer of the shops in his possession again, particularly when an order of ejectment had also been passed against him by the learned Rent Controller.
' As against the above contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that although in the earlier round of litigation, it has been held that the respondent is not entitled to the transfer of the shop in question yet the shops being not a part of the residential house, could not have been transferred to the petitioners nor they have actually been transferred, and, therefore, the same being available property, the respondent shall be entitled to claim the transfer thereof under the R.P. Scheme. When confronted with the proposition that relying on general principle of res judicata all the pleas available to the respondent in the earlier round of litigation have been closed, learned counsel for the respondent contended that there is no bar on powers of the respondent to re-open the matter even if the issues involved in the case have already been finally adjudicated upon by the various forums in Settlement Department.
5. I have considered the arguments raised by both the learned counsel. It is an admitted fact that in the earlier round of litigatin, claim of the respondent has been held to be not maintainable and transfer in favour of the petitioners has been upheld. It is an 'established principle of law that principles of general res judicata are applicable to all orders of judicious nature. Orders passed by the Settlement Authorities enjoy the status of finality as having been passed by the Tribunals of exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, once a controversy is finalized before the Settlement Authorities. It cannot be allowed to be restarted subsequently by the lower or equal forums. Law intends finality of settlement of disputes and no one can be vexed twice for the same cause of action as held in judgments reported as Tir Bakhsh and others v. The Chairman, Allotment Committee and others' PLD 1987 SC 145 and Aziz Ahmad and others v. Mst. Hajran Bibi and another'
1987 SCM R 527. Arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent are that the property being shop and hence not transferred alongwith the residential unit, is also misconceived. A portion of residential premises may be used as shop yet it will - not tease to be a part of the residential premises. Even otherwise, it is a question of fact and this plea was available to the respondent during the course of earlier proceedings. Having raised all the pleas which have been raised in the present proceedings, and even if failed to raise ,the pleas which could have been raised in the earlier proceedings, the respondent cannot be allowed to get the controversy re-opened. In view of the above, in my view, the respondent had absolutely no jurisdiction to re-open the matter and at any rate the impugned order is liable to be set aside even on merits and hence is liable to be declared as without lawful authority. Accordingly, I accept the writ petition No,473-R/81 and declare the order dated 23-6-1981 passed by the respondent to the extent of the fmdings to the effect that the shops have not been transferred to the petitioners and should be put to auction as being without lawful authority and set it aside. Writ Petition No,583 R/81 is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.