The facts of the case are that Plot No.1786/2 measuring 7 Marlas, 147 sq.ft. situate in Bharat Nagar Lahore was auctioned in favour of the petitioner on 6-8-1960 for Rs.4,500 and the same was confirmed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 18-11-1960. In pursuance of this P.T.O.
No.56717 was issued on 24-i1-1960. The petitioner paid the transfer price of the property in question and P.T.D. was also issued in his name on 26-10-1963.
2. It appears that the property' in dispute was also transferred on 13-3-1974 in favour of respondent No.l Rana Zafar Iqbal who was served through citation and consequently ex parte proceedings were taken vide order dated 20-6-1989 of this Court. It is evident from the file that the second order of transfer in favour of respondent No.l was passed without hearing the petitioner.
3. Petitioner Taj Muhammad filed an applicationdated 1-10-1979 before the Settlement Commissioner for the withdrawal of the order dated 13-3-1974 passed in respect of the property in question. The case was however taken up by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner/Deputy Administrator, Lahore and vide his report dated 8-5-1980 discussed all the facts of the case and submitted the report to the Settlement Commissioner/Administrator (Residual Property), Lahore. In his report Deputy Settlement Commissioner clearly observed that the second order of transfer dated 13-3-1974 amounted to multiple transfer and liable to be cancelled. On this report the case was taken up by the learned Settlement Commissioner who vide his order dated 3-2-1981 held that since the P.T.D. has also been issued in favour of respondent No.l, therefore, he was helpless in re- opening the case. As to the merits of the case he clearly held that the property in question was transferred to the petitioner in 1960 through auction and that the same could not be transferred to respondent No.l on 13-3-1974. He categorically observed that "The order thus passed by the learned Dy. Settlement Commissioner on 13-3-1974 at the back of the petitioner is void ab initio and offends against all the principles of natural justice".
4. Respondent No.l in this case has been proceeded ex parte after citation. There is unimpeachable evidence on the record that the property in dispute was transferred to the petitioner and thereafter transfer price paid and PTD issued on 26-10-1963. In this view of the matter the second order of transfer dated 13-3-1974 was without any legal authority. The Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 3-2-1981 could have set aside this order. But as PTD had been issued also in favour of respondent No.l he consideredhimself helpless in doing so.
5. As the property in dispute has already been transferred to the petitioner in 1960, the same could not have been transferred to respondent No.l in 1974. In view of this writ petition is accepted and the property in question stands transferred in favour of the petitioner. There is no order as to costs.