' FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.---Grandfather of the petitioner; namely, Abdul Majid Khan was temporarily allotted land measuring 63 Kanals 4 Marlas including disputed Khasra No,1101 measuring 1 Kanal 0 Marla 112 Sq.Ft. In lieu of his claim for urban agricultural land vide order dated 2-9-1953. Tariq Ismail Khan, his son, succeeded him and the land was proposed in his name in LR-11 No,13 issued in his name on 17-2-1959 and subsequently confirmed on 18-12-1959.
2. It is worth mentioning that at the time of such exercise the NaibTehsildar on 24-6-1961 had reported that land bearing Khasra No,1101 was a "Kothee" and should not have been confirmed but the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner/Secretary, Allotment Committee discussed the matter and found, as a question of fact, that the said Abadi was subservient to agricultural purposes hence maintained the allotment vide order dated 15-11-1961. This fact was further scrutinized and re-affirmed by Martial Law Authorities. The question, therefore, attained finality and never challenged before any higher forum.
3. The "Kothee" used to be let out to various persons from time to time and lastly it was let out to respondent No,3 in the year 1972 on payment of rent. Tariq Ismail Khan gifted this property to the petitioner on 8-3-1978. As such respondent No,3 became the statutory tenant under the petitioner.
The tenant defaulted in payment of rent which compelled the petitioner to file petition for his ejectment from the "Kothee" before the Controller of Rent. To avoid his ejectment respondent No,3 made an application alleging that the "Kothee" was a hidden property and that he was entitled to its transfer. Alongwith the application he applied for condonation of delay in filing R-Property Form which was allowed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner without hearing the petitioner. Deputy Administrator by his order dated 24-5-1984 held that the transfer in favour of the petitioner's predecessor was void, ab initio and treated the property as residuary property and ordered its transfer in favour of respondent No,3. The petitioner's revision petition against the same order was dismissed on 9-1-1993. His writ petition challenging the aforementioned orders as illegal and without lawful authority was also dismissed vide order against which leave to appeal is prayed for.
4. Leave is granted to consider; whether, the order passed under Repealed Settlement Laws after conscious application of mind by the competent authorities and such order having attained the finality and had become a past and closed transaction could have been re-opened and set aside by the Deputy Administrator Residuary Property who has a limited authority with regard to the available property, and as to whether he could sit on judgment of the Settlement Authorities having not been challenged before the forum in the hierarchy.