KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J.* This judgment will dispose of two petitions (W.P.No. 254/R/81 and 391- R/81) as one and the same order dated 29.3.1981 of the learned settlement Commissioner (Land) with the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore, has been assailed. The impugned order has been passed pursuant to the order of remand passed by this Court in W.P. No. 496-R/1975 with the direction to the Chief Settlement Commissioner to entrust the case to an authority exercising powers under Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, as well as Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act as the nature of the property in dispute requires to be determined. This direction was passed after recording the following observation:- The contest between the parties is about the nature of the property. As two different authorities acted under two different laws, the matter ought to have been refer^d to a revisional authority exercising power under both the laws. This has not been done."
The Chief Settlement Commissioner in compliance with the aforesaid direction entrusted the case to Syed Muzaffar Hussain Kazmi, Settlement Commissioner (Land)/Settlement Commissioner (Urban) with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore, who after hearing the parties held that the land of disputed khasra Nos. 1204/1139/629 measuring 1 kanal I6 mis. Being potential urban site could not be allotted to predecessor-in-interest of Syed Nazar Abbas, the petitioner in the other petition as agricultural land against urban agricultural units. The allotment so made as such was declared to be illegal and without jurisdiction. The transfer obtained by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner in W.P.No. 254/81 and the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 21.12.1964 as well as PTO & PTD issued in pursuant to the said order were declared illegal and without jurisdiction for the reasons that building site was transferred on a simple application without any construction or possession of the said applicant over the disputed plot. It was held that the said applicant being not in possession and having not raised any construction over the plot in dispute, was not entitled to obtain its transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 and that building site in question was required to be disposed of through public auction. The petitioners who are purchasers from the original transferees of the plot as urban site, filed writ petition No. 254-R/81 challenging the aforesaid order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner while Syed Nazar Abbas who obtained allotment of the plot in dispute as agricultural land filed an other petition No. 391/81.
2. Ch. Khurshid Ahmed, learned counsel for Qamar-ud-Din and ''Muhammad Siddiq, submitted that the Chief Settlement Commissioner in the impugned order could only determine the status of property as that was the only direction made in the remand order and xx as such he proceeded illegally in declaring the allotment obtained by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners as illegal and without jurisdiction. There is* no merit in the submission of the learned counsel, as nature of the property was not to be determined as an academic exercise. The learned Judge while remanding the matter observed in pare-6 of the order that the contest between the parties is about the nature of the property and as two different authorities acted under two different laws, the matter ought to have been referred to a revisional authority exercising power under both the laws. The remand was made in both the petitions so that two inconsistent orders could be examined and the appropriate order could be passed. This was precisely what the learned Settlement Commissioner (Land)/ Settlement Commissioner, (Urban) with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore, exercising revisional jurisdiction under both the laws, has done and after holding that the land in question was a potential building site examined the claim of both the sides on merits and passed the order which was required by law to be passed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners claimed the transfer of the plot by filing a form, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure 'B\ A perusal of this plot form shows that neither possession over the disputed plot had been claimed nor there existed any construction thereon as the relevant columns have been left blank. Para 13 of the Schedule of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 reads as under:- "An evacuee building site which has been allotted to a non-claimant displaced person or local on which a permanent building has been constructed by him shall be transferred to him on payment of the market price prevailing at the time of allotment".
The above requirements were non-existent in the case of predecessor-in-interest and as such the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction to transfer the vacant building site to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. There is thus no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
3. The petition of Syed Nazar Abbas (WJP. No. 391-R/81) is equally without merit as the learned counsel did not challenge the status of plot in dispute as building site. The building sites do not fall within the definition of the term 'land' and as such is not transferable under Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The transfer of the building site as agricultural land against urban agricultural unit, was illegal and without jurisdiction. No justifiable exception can, therefore, be taken to the impugned order. This petition is also dismissed with no order as to costs.