' The dispute in this case relates to portion of Property No, P/380, Ward No, 9, Jhang Bazar, Lyallpur known as Ram Singh Saw Machine. At one time the disputed property was transferred in favour of Fazal Ahmad and Muhammad Yaqoob. They did not pay the transfer price of the property obviously because the assessm ent of the respective portion was not made by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The petitioners have been agitating the matter before the Settlement Authorities and before this Court and this is the third round of litigation.
2. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lyallpur by his order dated 15-5-1970 assessed the monthly rent for each transferee and the names of the present petitioners do not figure here.
However, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a sum of Rs, 30 per month was assessed also in respect of the portion of M/s. Fazal Ahmad and Muhammad Yaqoob. The present petitioners filed an appeal againsethe order dated 15-5-1970 which was decided by the Additional Settlement Commissioner (M.M. Aslam) vide his order dated 6-10-1971. He maintained the assessm ent made by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 15-5-1970. As to the petitioner he observed as under:-- "It is a fact that their (petitioners') appeals against the order of Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 15-5-1970 with regard to the apportionment of the rent were pending to this Court. As such it was not proper to dispose of the portions during the pendency of the appeals. I, therefore, dispose of these two appeals with the directions that these two appellants should pay the price of their portions as was assessed vide Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order dated 15-5-1970 within 30 days. If they make payment within this prescribed period, then the auction in favour of the respondents will be set aside and the portions in dispute restored to the appellants. Otherwise the auction already held will stand."
' No date of auction has been stated in the order dated 6-10-1971 but both the learned counsel state that the auction took place on 24-7-1970. Against this order dated 6-10-1971 of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, the present petitioners filed revision petition which was dismissed on 20-5-1972 on the ground that the same was incompetent. The learned Settlement Commissioner by this order held that no question of title to transfer of the property was involved in this case.
Apparently he was of the view that no revision petition was competent as to the apportionment of rent in respect of the portions transferred. I am told by the learned counsel that a Writ Petition No, 653-R of 1972 was filed against the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 20-5-1972 which was accepted on 21-3-1975 and the case was remanded for fresh decision. In pursuance of this order dated 21-3-1975 of this Court the matter was taken up by the Additional Settlement Commissioner with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner who by his order dated 27-10-1975 rejected the revision petition of the petitioners which was earlier held to be incompetent and further held that the petitioners were given opportunity to pay the transfer price of the property within 30 days and having failed to do so they have no right whatsoever to claim the property once transferred to them in 1960.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the property could not have been put to auction on 24-7-1970 during the pendency of the appeal. This argument loses all significance because the appeal of the petitioners was decided on 6-10-1971 and in this order the petitioners were given option to pay transfer price within 30 days otherwise the auction will be kept intact. The petitioners did not avail of the opportunity and admittedly the payment has not been made till today. The impugned order dated 27-10-1975 of the learned Additional Commissioner with powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner seems to be unexceptionable.
4. The learned counsel further argues that his Compensation Book is lying with the Settlement Department and the transfer price should have been adjusted therefrom. In this connection he also filed C.M. No,1/75 and placed reliance on Annexure E which is a letter No, SAO.GBCP. IV, dated 20-7- 1972. This application was taken into consideration vide order dated 14-11-1975 of this Court.
However, a report dated 12-12-1975 was called for from the Settlement Department which is at pages 29 to 31 of this file. As to the Compensation Book the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lyallpur in para 2 of his report dated 12-12-1975 observed as under:-- "As regards petitioner No,2, he intimated the department on 9-7-1970 for adjustment of his transfer price from his Compensation Book No, 349697/LYP-I issued against Form A No, 6715/LYP-I. On checking it was found that the above-noted Compensation Book was not issued to the petitioner. It was further noticed that he got 3 Compensation Books prepared. One was lying cancelled and the other two were lying unissued. The adjustment of transfer price, therefore, could not be made. The property which had already been resumed for non-payment and included in the auction list and no objection from the petitioners was received, was auctioned on 24-7-1970."
' In the aforementioned report dated 12-12-1975 the Deputy Settlement Commissioner has pointed out in para 4(h) as under:-- "The petitioners are defaulting in payment intentionally. The petitioner No, 1 never intimated the department about the mode of payment. As regards petitioner No, 2 he not only avoided payment but also played frauds i,e,:-
(i) He got 3 Compensation Books prepared in his name.
(ii) He intimated different numbers/particulars of Compensation Books to the department.
(iii) He tried to get cash compensation through C.P.IV Form No, 1278 which is still pending in head office."
' Despite the above report the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show before me that the petitioners Nos, 1 and 2 are in possession of any genuine Compensation Book or the same is lying with the Settlement Department for adjustment.
5. On the other hand the report in question has not been controverted by the petitioners nor they have filed any rejoinder to this in default of which it is abundantly clear that the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding Compensation Book is untenable. It is to be noted that even Annexure E letter dated 20-7-1972 attached to C.M.No, 1/75 shows that it was only Muhammad Yaqoob petitioner No, 2 who was claiming the Compensation Book and not petitioner No, 1 Fazal Ahmad. The averments made in the report dated 22-12-1975 of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner were correct. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies on Dalloomal v. Nasir Hussain and others (1989 SCM R 18) where it is held that if the cancellation or resumption of the transferred property takes place in the absence of observing the prescribed procedure for cancellation/redemption the same is illegal and the earlier transfer in favour of the party concerned remains intact.
5-A. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not pointed out any legal mistake in the procedure which tend to show that the cancellation or the resumption procedure was illegal. I am sorry to point out that in the present Writ Petition No, 1218-R/75 only impugned order dated 27-10-1975 was filed and not the previous relevant ordeRs, However, I passed order dated Ist of September, 1992 allowing Mr. RA. Zafar, counsel for respondents Nos, 2 to 5 to produce the relevant orders of the Settlement Authorities.
' The upshot of the above discussion is that the petitioners were given enough opportunity to pay the transfer price of the property which they failed. In view of this the auction held in favour of respondent No, 2 Mst. Barkat Bibi cannot be questioned by the present petitioneRs, ' In view of what I have stated above there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed.
However, there is no order as to costs.