' This Settlement Appeal was instituted by the Evacuee Property Trust Board, through its Secretary, Lahore challenging the validity of the order dated 25-9-1969 having been passed by the learned Settlement Commissioner, Lahore Camp at Sialkot. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Property No,2219 situated in Main Bazar, Daska was transferred to the contesting respondent against his verified claim by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 16-12-1965. Entire transfer price was paid by him and in consequence, PTD was issued to him on 29-9-1966. Chairman, District Evacuee Trust Committee/D.C. Held that the property in question was evacuee and was rightly transferred to the contesting respondent, on 27-4-1967. An appeal was filed by the Evacuee Turst Property Board before the learned Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore who after hearing the parties dismissed it on 11-7-1967. In the meantime, a plan was got sanctioned by the respondent and thereafter, he reconstructed the property in question by spending about Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lac). On 20-8-1968, an application was moved by the Evacuee Property Trust Board under section 4 (3) of the Displaced Persons (C & R) Act, 1958 before the Settlement Commissioner for obtaining a declaration that the property was non-evacuee. Learned Settlement Commissioner recorded the evidence of the parties and after hearing them came to the conclusion that the property in question was evacuee and that it was rightly and validly transferred to the contesting respondent, vide his order dated 19-6-1969. On 25-9-1969, review application of the appellant was also heard and dismissed by the learned Settlement Commissioner.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the order dated 25-9-1969 was ex parte on the face of record and that an opportunity may be given to the appellant of being heard. It is argued by him that there is sufficient evidence available on the record to show that the property was non- evacuee and as such it was not available in the compensation pool for its transfer to the respondent. This being so, it is argued that the transfer order in favour of the respondent was void ab initio. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent has raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was barred by limitation and the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act did not disclose any sufficient reason for condonation of delay. He further argues that no date on which information was received for the disposal of the property was given in the affidavit attached with the application. He maintains that the absence of the learned counsel from the Court was a sufficient ground for dismissal of the case of the appellant in default. In support of his plea, learned counsel relies upon Muhammad Nawaz and others v. Mst. Skina Bibi (1974 SCM R 223) and Amanullah v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (1974 SCM R 482). It is contended that sufficient evidence was produced by the respondent including the documentary evidence to show that the property was rightly transferred to him. He informs the Court that the property in question was owned and possessed by Lala Harbans Lal son of Gopal Dass and that it was never treated as Evacuee Trust Property. Lastly it is stated that the Chairman, District Evacuee Trust Committee on the basis of evidence came to the conclusion that the property .Was Snot evacuee trust property.
He further submits that Commissioner, Lahore Division also dismissed the appeal of the Board on 11-7-1967 holding that the property was not Evacuee Trust Property. According to learned counsel, all these authorities came to a finding of fact on the basis of evidence which cannot be disturbed in these proceedings.
4. Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Bhutta learned counsel for the Settlement Department has adopted the arguments raised and argued by the learned counsel for the contesting respondent.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and having seen the record with care, I have come to the conclusion that the property in question was rightly treated as evacuee property and validly transferred by the competent Settlement Authority in favour of the contesting respondent in lieu of transfer price. The competent Settlement Authority has also issued P.T.D. In favour of the respondent. He has, therefore, become the full owner of the property. Apart from the above, the appeal was also filed after the expiry of limitation period. No sufficient cause could be shown by the appellant in filing the appeal before this Court beyond limitation. This being so, there is no substance in the appeal which is hereby dismissed with costs throughout.