' The petitioner is a claimant displaced person from the State of Jammu and Kashmir and was transferred shop bearing No,20/413 situate in Bazar Kathianwala, district Sialkot, by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 18th February, 1960. It appears that a dispute arose with regard to another portion of the property between respondents Nos.2 and 3 and others which was decided by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner vide order, dated 23rd June, 1976. It was held that Abdul Ghani, respondent No,2, was not entitled to the transfer of the property bearing No,20/412. At that time a request was made to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner that a Khola, which is situate towards the back of shop No,20/413 be transferred to Abdul Ghani respondent. This request was accepted by the D.S.C. Who observed that in order to accommodate Abdul Ghani and to avoid further litigation between the parties, the Khola shold be given to Abdul Ghani respondent and as the said Khola had no approach except through the shop transferred to the petitioner, the right of easement should be honoured. This order has been assailed by the petitioner through this writ petition.
2. I have heard Mr. Muhammd Rafiq Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. Hamid Ali Mirza, Advocate, on behalf of respondent No,1.
3. An application bearing No,3060 of 1985 has been filed by one Muhammad Saleem son of Abdul Ghani, transferee of Property No,20-411-12 with the prayer that the writ petition be dismissed as he, being a necessary party, has not been impleaded. Mr. Khan Muhammad Bajwa, Advocate, who has appeared on his behalf, has been heard.
4. There is no dispute that the petitioner was transferred Shop A No,20/413 in Bazar Khatianwala, Sialkot, and this transfer in his favour attained finality. From the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sialkot, it is clear that the Khola, which is situate towards the back of the shop, was also occupied by the petitioner, and there was no approach to it except through the shop. It was, as such, an integral part of the shop and stood transferred to the petitioner. Under no law could that Khola be taken away from the petitioner and transferred to respondent No,2 merely with a view to accommodate him, although he had no claim over the same, nor had he applied for its transfer. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner acted clearly in excess of his jurisdiction in ordering the transfer of the Khola to respondent No,2 and further directing that right of way should be provided to him through the shop of the petitioner.
5. So far as the C.M. (3060 of 1985) is concerned, it is misconceived. Since the applicant is not a party to the proceedings, he cannot file any such application. Furthermore, the applicant claims to be the transferee of Property No,20-411-12 while the dispute in this case relates to a part of Shop No,20/413. The application has, therefore, no locus standi in the matter. Consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous is dismissed.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect, with no order as to costs.