1. ' WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---Mst. Allah Rakhi widow of Abdul Rehman and Mst. Wazir Begum daughter of Haji Muhammad, petitioners herein, call in question the judgment dated 26-5-1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, whereby Writ Petition No, 327-R/73 filed by Mst. Ghulam Sakina and Mst. Ghulam Ruqqia daughters of Khawaja Niaz Ahmed, respondents 4 and 5 herein, was accepted and the orders of the Settlement Commissioner, impugned therein, were declared to be without lawful authority. It was further ordered "Dr. Mushahid Ali, being the lawful transferee, the matter of recovery/adjustment of dues against him and/or his associates, petitioners herein remains to be finalized. It is already awfully delayed. The Notified Officer concerned shall take immediate steps in this regard and thereafter issue the transfer documents to the petitioners and/or Dr. Mushahid Ali in terms of deed of association, subject to the completion of formalities regarding the aforesaid deed of association. No costs".
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that evacuee shop No, 271, Ward No, 3, Multan was put to auction on 22-2-1960 and was purchased by one Siraj Din for a sum of Rs, 40,500 which was subsequently cancelled at his request. On 30-5-1960 Dr. Mushahid Ali, respondent No,3 herein, applied for the transfer thereof on the strength of his CS Form which was rejected by the Chief Settlement Commissioner but ordered its transfer to him under section 10 (a) of the Displaced Persons Compensation Act, 1958 for Rs, 40,500 vide order dated 30-5-1960. He entered into an agreement of association with Mst. Ghulam Sakina and Mst. Ghulam Ruqqia, respondents 4 and 5 herein, on 29-9-1964 and the deed of association was submitted to the department which was allowed.
3. Settlement Scheme No, VIII came into force on 17-6-1965 and on the enforcement thereof Mst. Allah Rakhi, petitioner No,1 herein, filed Form No, 32/129 requesting for the transfer of the shop on the strength of her possession over it through her brother but the same was rejected by the D.S.C. On 12-4-1967 on the ground that the property was not available for transfer. Her appeal was, however, accepted by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 30-3-1968 and the case remanded and after giving opportunity of rehearing to the parties, the DSC again rejected the same and maintained the transfer of the shop in the name of respondent No,3. Mst. Allah Rakhi went in appeal for the second time which was again accepted and the case remanded to determine her eligibility.
4. Respondents 4 and 5 went in revision but failed and so was further revision by the Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 20-12-1972. The shop was ultimately transferred to Mst. Allah Rakhi petitioner No,1 by the D.S.C. Vide order dated 7-2-1973 in lieu of evaluation price at Rs,6,624. Mst.
5. Ghulam Sakina and Mst. Ghulam Ruqqia, respondents 4 and 5 herein, filed writ petition before the High Court challenging the orders of the Settlement Commissioner regarding the transfer of shop in question to Mst. Allah Rakhi. During the pendency thereof Mst. Allah Rakhi sold the shop to Mst.
6. Wazir Begum, petitioner No, 2 herein, for Rs,10,000 despite the fact that the injunction order restraining her from the alienation of the disputed shop had been passed by the Court in the writ petition. The learned High Court on consideration of the factual and legal aspect of the case, accepted the writ petition and passed the impugned order as reproduced in the introductory part of this judgment ' We have heard Mr. A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate, for the petitioners, and have perused the record of the case.
7. ' Basically the contest for the entitlement of the shop in dispute is between Mst. Allah Rakhi, petitioner No,1, on the strength of her possession in accordance with the provision of Settlement Scheme No,VIII and Dr. Mushahid Ali, respondent No,3, basing his claim to the shop on the basis of order dated 30-5-1960 passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner whereby the shop was transferred to him for Rs,40,500. Since this order is the basic one, it is being reproduced for convenience sake and ready reference:-- "I have gone through the report of the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Multan. The C.S. Form of the petitioner has been rejected as he is not in occupation of the disputed shop. I cannot find fault with the order of the Settlement Authorities in rejecting his C.S. Form. This shop fetched an amount of Rs,40,500 in the auction which took place on the 22nd February, 1960. It has been reported by the Additional Settlement Commissioner that the highest bidder, Mirza Siraj- ud-Din has now prayed that his bid may be cancelled as he is not in a position to pay the auction price. If the petitioner, Dr. Mushahid Ali is interested in purchasing the shop at Rs,40,500 it may be transferred to him under section 10(a) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1958). If he is not prepared to offer that bid the shop should be put to an unrestricted public auction."
8. ' In acceptance to the above offer, Dr. Mushahid Ali, respondent No,3, submitted an application (copy Exh. D-4) to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Multan on 1-2-1964 praying that the shop may be transferred to him and he be allowed to deposit the auction price of Rs,40,500 which was duly processed by the office concerned. An agreement of association between him and Mst.
9. Ghulam Sakina and Mst. Ghulam Ruqqia, respondents 4 and 5, dated 29-9-1964 duly signed by them and the witnesses and also attested by Notary Public was filed. However, the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner in spite of the written application of Mr. Mushahid Ali and the agreement of association filed, vide his order dated 18-11-1965 held that respondent No,3 having failed to pay the price according to the orders of C.S.C., final notice be given to him else the offer shall be considered as cancelled and the bid of Sirajuddin confirmed. Thereafter Mst. Allah Rakhi, as discussed earlier, came into the picture and the litigation started between her and Dr. Mushahid Ali.
10. All along the Settlement Officers have not denied the offer made to respondent No,3 for the purchase of the shop in lieu of Rs,40,500. The only dispute was regarding payment of the consideration. He has established on the record the tendering of agreement of association between him and respondents 4 and 5, and the adjustment of the amount from the compensation book in lieu of the price for the suit shop and it was the function of the Settlement Authorities to make the necessary alteration in their record and Dr. Mushahid All had nothing to do further in the matter of adjustment. Mst. Allah Rakhi, petitioner No,1, applied for the transfer of the suit shop much after the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the filing of the agreement of association, and therefore, her prayer for the transfer of the shop could not be legally considered, as the shop was not available for transfer and the allotment order in her favour being in ignorance of the earlier order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, duly accepted and acted upon by respondent No,3, was without lawful authority and jurisdiction. The learned High Court has, after consideration of the factual and legal aspect of the case, correctly arrived at the conclusion that the orders of the Settlement Officers regarding the suit shop in favour of Mst. Allah Rakhi, petitioner No,1, were without lawful authority and of no legal effect and finding no legal flaw therein, we are not persuaded to grant leave to appeal.
11. ' Resultantly, finding no merit in the instant petition, the same dismissed and leave to appeal refused.