' Facts of the case are that Property No,3/43/1204-A. Shahpur City, District Sargodha owned by an evacuee Devi Ditta Mal Kumar was auctioned on 28th May, 1960 in favour of one Nathu for Rs,4,400 and the same was confirmed in September, 1960. P.T.D. Was issued in his favour on 22-5-1963. After the death of auction purchaser Nathu, his legal heirs sold the property in favour of respondent No,3 Fateh Muhammad by sale-deed dated 5th August, 1964. On 13-10-1977 the petitioner Jaafar Khan filed an application for the transfer of shop No,3/43/1024-A which is at page 16 of the file. He described the date of his possession in this form as Ist of November, 1975. The Settlement Inspector made a report on 28-12-1978 that the file Property No,3/43/1024-A, Shahpur City is not maintained in the office. However the entry exists in the survey register and as such the said property is available for disposal. The Deputy. Administrator (Residual Properties) Sargodha by order dated 18th April, 1979 transferred the property as available property in favour of petitioner Ghulam Jaafar son of Haji Noor Elahi. Respondent No,3 Fateh Muhammad, who is the vendee from the legal heirs of Nathu once action-purchaser, filed a revision petition before the Additional Settlement Commissioner who by his order dated 23-8-1980 accepted the same on the ground that property No,3/43/1024 is a compact single unit. In para. 4 of his order he has referred to certain house tax receipts relatable to House Nos,1024-A and 1024-B. The tenor of the order of the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner is that there is no shop such as 1024-A. The petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing the order dated 23-8-1980 of the Administrator (Residual Properties), Sargodha Division, Sargodha. Jan Muhammad having died, his legal heirs are represented by Mr. Hamid Nasim, Advocate.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention, to a copy of the survey list of rent of urban property maintained in the office of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for the year 1958 and on these basis argues that there are two properties No,3/43/1024 and 3/43/1024-A.
According to him this being the position Jaafar Khan was rightly transferred property No,1024-A. He further relies upon the - taxation record of Town Committee Shahpur relating to year 1955-56 showing the same position. He further submits that according to the auction list placed on the file of this Court only property No,3/43/1024 was auctioned and not property No,1024-A.
3. The crucial point for decision in this case is as to the record relating to the year 1945-46 certified copy of which has been placed on the record by the respondent as R.1. According to this record there is only one property 1024 owned by Lal Devi Ditta Mal Kumar. The same entries are repeated in the record of 1952-53 which is Annexure R-2 produced by respondent No,3. In view of this, reference to the entries by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no legal significance.
4. Another point which requires serious consideration is that before transferring the property in dispute in favour of the petitioner report dated 28th December, 1978 referred to above was made.
This report stands vitally contradicted by another report of the same Settlement Inspector which is Annexure R-6 and is dated 21-3-1979. According to this there is no record showing the existence of property No,3/43/1024-A. It is manifestly clear that there are two contradictory reports as to property No1024-A, one dated 28th December 1978 and the other dated 21-3-1979. Further the Deputy Administrator while transferring property No,1024-A Shahpur City did not apply his mind or referred to any relevant document showing property No,1024-A as a separate unit. He ought to have taken into consideration the record of 1945-46 which is not controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner before me. This shows that there is only one property 1024 Shahpur City Sargodha.
5. Another important point which goes against the petitioner is as to how he came into possession of the property in question on the basis of which the same could be transferred to him as an available property. It is the mandatory requirement of para. 6 of the scheme for the Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties that such properties be transferred on the basis of possession. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner in clear terms held that the petitioner Ghulam Jaafar has failed to produce any proof to establish his possession over and part of the property.
6. I have asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to show me any evidence as to his possession over the property in question but he failed to do so. He only relies on a rent deed dated 16-3-1980 allegedly executed by respondent Fateh Muhammad. Admittedly this does not show possession of the petitioner at the relevant time. It appears that even this rent deed was not produced before the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner as is clear from his order, relevant portion of which is as under:-- "No documentary proof has been produced in support of the contention that the shop was rented out to the petitioner at the rate of Rs,50 p.m. By the respondent.
7. As the petitioner has failed to show before the relevant authorities and also before me his possession over the disputed property I find no illegality in the order dated 23-8-1980 passed by the Administrator (Residual Properties) Sargodha accepting the revision of respondent Fateh Muhammad holding that property No,3/43/1024 is a compact single unit. The transfer order dated 18-4-1979 in favour of the petitioner passed by the Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties)
Sargodha was, therefore, rightly set aside.
' In view of above there is no merit in this writ petition which is dismissed without any order as to costs.