' The dispute in this case relates to Shop No,11 in Property No,1/44, situate at Court Road, Gujrat, and there are two sets of contestants for its transfer, i,e, the petitioners on one hand and the legal heirs of respondent No,4 on the other. The case of the petitioners is that this property was occupied by Abdul Rehman, their predecessor-in-interest, in 1956 and he remained in its occupation till his death on 24-2-1977, whereafter the petitioners have been continuously in undisputed possession of the shop up to date. Abdul Rehman, in his lifetime, filed a transfer form under Settlement Scheme No,VIII for this shop. After his death, Shahbaz Ali, petitioner No,6, one of his legal heirs, submitted another form seeking the transfer of the shop under the Scheme for Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties, 1977, on 31-12-1978.
' The form under Settlement Scheme No,VIII filed by Abdul Rehman was rejected by the D.S.C./Notified Officer, Gujrat, on 17-8-1982 on the ground that it was belated one. Shahbaz Ali petitioner, in the meantime, had withdrawn his form. The property in question was declared to be available property and placed in the residual property pool. The petitioners filed a petition before the Administrator (Residual Property), Gujrat, for condonation of delay in the submission of R.P.
Form, which was forwarded to the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Policies), Board of Revenue, Lahore. It was rejected vide communication addressed through letter dated 25-8-1983, on the ground that the petitioners had not been found to be in possession of the property in dispute on or before 1-1-1976.
' Another form filed under the Scheme for Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties, 1977, filed by Akhtar Hussain, deceased respondent No,4, was entertained after condonation of delay, subject to the availability of property and his eligibility, which was to be examined/scrutinized further in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme. Hence this Writ Petition.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that:
(i) they have been condemned unheard. Had they been afforded an opportunity of being heard, they would have been able to satisfy the concerned quarter that their possession over the disputed property stood established on or before 1-1-1976;
(ii) the form of deceased respondent No,4 had been illegally entertained after condoning the delay, inasmuch as no reasons have been spelt out in the order passed in this behalf for showing this indulgence to him; and
(iii) in, any case, discriminatory treatment has been meted out to the petitioners in the matter of condonation of delay.
3. On the contrary, Mr. Izharul Haq, learned counsel for the legal heirs of deceased respondent No,4, has urged that the property in dispute was earlier transferred by the Settlement Department vide PTD dated 24-1-1962, to one Abdul Rashid, who sold the same to Barkat All through a registered sale-deed dated 7-5-1965. Deceased respondent No,4 purchased the shop from Barkat All through registered deed, dated 12-2-1966. It is later on that the Permanent Transfer Deed of Abdul Rashid was declared, by the High Court, to be without lawful authority in a writ petition as the same was not backed by a transfer order. Deceased respondent No,4, according to the learned counsel, had thus obtained constructive possession of the shop in dispute way back in 1965 and, therefore, the Chief Settlement Commissioner/Notified Officer, was fully justify to condone the delay in filing the present form by him through the order dated 6-7-1983. On the contrary, the petitioners having failed to establish that tr ey were in possession of the disputed shop or before the target date, i,e, 1 1-1976, no fault can be found with the impugned order, rejecting their transfer form.
4. Mr. Hamid All Mirza, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3, has placed on record a copy of the notification published in the Punjab Gazette dated 27-5-1984, whereby, in exercise of powers conferred under section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, the Government of the Punjab made an amendment in para. 3 Chapter III of the Scheme for Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties, to the effect that the transfer applications under the said Scheme would not be entertained after 31-5-1984. According to the learned counsel, indeed, discriminatory treatment has been meted out to the petitioners, inasmuch as their transfer application having been made before the target date, as postulated through the above-said amendment, should not have been turned down on the ground of being out of time.
5. I find merit in the writ petition. The learned Deputy Administrator (Residual Property) being seized of two transfer forms submitted by the contesting parties, both of which had been filed well within time, should have processed the same and after evaluating the respective merits of the forms, the same should have been finally disposed of in accordance with law. There was no justification for forwarding' the misconceived applications filed by the parties for condonation of delay in respect of their respective forms, to the Chief Settlement Commissioner. According to the amendment in the Scheme, as brought about by the notification, referred to above, the last date for submission of forms was 31-5-1984, and admittedly both the transfer forms have been filed before the said date.
Even otherwise, in view of the dictum of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ch. Altaf Hussain's case PLD 1965 SC 68 no terminal date could be lawfully fixed by the Settlement Authorities for submission of transfer forms regarding evacuee properties.
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned order rejecting the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay is not sustainable in law and the same is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The net result is that both the transfer forms, filed by Abdul Rehman, the predecessor of the petitioners and deceased respondent No,4, would be deemed to be pending adjudication which shall be disposed of in accordance with law. The matter is remitted to the learned Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner. The parties shall appear before the learned officer on 19-8-1993, who shall entrust the same to a competent notified officer of District Gujrat, with a direction to dispose of the matter within a period of three months. No costs.
Writ issued.