1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, C. J.-The subject-matter of the appeal is disposal under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, of composite property No. S-II-10-S-3, situated in Raja Ram Street, New Anarkali, Lahore. It consists of several residential units, a shop and 7 servant quarters.
2. At the commencement of the settlement operations, ten persons were in possession of different parts of the property. Three of them were non---claimants, and seven were claimants displaced persons. Inamul Haq and Abdul Sattar, sons of Haji Muhammad Sharif, the original allottee and Maulvi Umar Din were in occupation of major portion of the building. Mian Sunder Ali, Muhammad Hanif, Noor Ilahi, claimants Abdul Hamid and Rehmat Ali, sons of Karam Din and Rehmat Ali son of Umar Din non---claimants were in possession of the rest of the property in different parts.
3. The aforementioned claimants filed settlement forms for transfer of the portions in their respective possession. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner entrusted the case for site inspection and report to Mr. Karam Dad Khan, Settlement Inspector. He visited the site on 20-2-1960 and examined the entitlements of all the 10 occupants. In a detailed report dated 20-2-1960 he dealt with the merits of each applicant's case and suggested that the entire building be transferred to Inamul Haq and Abdul Sattar sons of Haji Muhammad Sharif and Maulvi Umar Din son of Mian Boota as they were senior allottees and in possession of major portion of the house ; their claims were verified for larger sums of money than the others ; and the building could be divided into two portions with separate entrances one from the main deohri and the other from the door at the back.
4. On 22nd February 1960, Mr. Muhammad Ajmal, Deputy Settlement Commissioner agreed with the report and thereupon Appendix IX were issued to Maulvi Umar Din and to Inamul Haq and Abdul Sattar sons of Haji Muhammad Sharif.
5. Three appeals were filed from the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, one jointly by Mian Sunder Ali, Noor Elahi and Nawab Din against the transfer of the residential portions in their occupation to Maulvi Umar Din. Inamul Haq and Abdul Sattar ; the second by Mian Sunder Ali against the transfer of the shop to Maulvi Umar Din 3 and the third by Muhammad Hanif against the transfer of the portion in his occupation to Maulvi Umar Din. The Additional Settlement Commissioner dismissed the two appeals preferred by Mian Sunder Ali, etc., by order dated 1st June 1960, and allowed the appeal filed by Muhammad Hanif directing that the portion in his possession be transferred to him.
6. From the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, three revision petitions were filed one by Maulvi Umar Din against Muhammad Hanif ; the other by Mian Sunder Ali against transfer of the residential portion in his possession to Maulvi Umar Din, Inamul Haq and Abdul Sattar and third against Maulvi Umar Din alone against the transfer of the shop to him. On the 8th February 1961, the Settlement Commissioner allowed the revision petition filed by Umar Din against Muhammad Hanif by a consent order. The room on the ground floor was taken away from Muhammad Hanif and given to Maulvi Umar Din, who, in lieu of it, allowed Muhammad Hanif the right of passage, from his portion to the room on the upper floor. The other two revisions filed by Mian Sunder Ali were rejected on the ground he was a non-allottee and had not filed CS form 'for transfer of the shop.
7. Against the order of the Settlement Commissioner, for revision petitions bearing Nos. 1335, 1525, 334 and 335 of 1961 were filed by the aforesaid contestants under section 20(2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 against each other.
8. Revision Petitions Nos. 1335 and 1525 were dismissed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on the 24th July 1962, on the ground that the records in these cases had not been summoned by 13th July 1962, the terminal date fixed in the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)
9. (Amendment) Ordinance II of 1962. Revision Petition No. 334/11 of 1962 was allowed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the residential portion in possession of Mian Sunder Ali was transferred to him. Revision Petition No. 335/11 filed by him claiming transfer of the shop was, however, dismissed arming the finding by the Settlement Commissioner that he had not filed CS form for its transfer.
10. Against the final order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner Maulvi Umar Din, Inamul Haq and Abdul Sattar filed two Writ Petitions W. P. No. 2954/11 of 1962 against the transfer in favour of Muhammad Hanif and W. P. No. 2131/11 of 1962 against the transfer to Mian Sunder Ali of the residential portion in his occupation. On 8-6-1963 Muhammad Hanif filed Writ Petition No. 11474/11 of 1963 disputing the legality of the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner whereby the room on the ground floor in his possession was transferred to Maulvi Umar Din. On 16-7-1964 Mian Sunder Ali filed Writ Petition No. 48/11 of 1964 against the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 16-10-1962 rejecting his claim for transfer of the shop on the contention that he had filed CS form for the transfer of the shop but the Chief Settlement Commissioner had erroneously held no such form was filed by him.
11. All the for writ petitions were heard and disposed by a single order dated 16th November, 1967, which is in appeal before us.
12. The learned Judges have set aside all the orders passed hitherto by the Settlement authorities and remanded the case for fresh decision in the view that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had merely agreed with the report of the Settlement Inspector and not applied his own mind to the entitlements of the various claimants in possession. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Ghulam Mohyuddin v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and another (PLD 1964 SC 829).
13. Leave to appeal was granted on the 25th June, 1968, to the heirs of Maulvi Umar Din, who had died in the meantime and Inamul Haq and Abdul Sattar sons of Haji Muhammad Sharif to examine whether the view taken by the High Court about the legality of the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was correct and whether they had correctly applied the principle enunciated in the case of Ghulam Mohyuddin.
14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the original record. As seen, the Settlement Inspector visited the site of the property, discussed the merits of the claim of each one of the applicants and proposed that the entire building be apportioned between the two sets of appellants herein. The recommendation proceeded on the ground that they were senior allottees and their claims were verified for larger sums than the others. On examining the record we feel satisfied that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had read the report by the Settlement Inspector and formed his own judgment that the property should be disposed of in two parts to the appellants hereinbefore he wrote the order, "I agree" and signed it on 22-2-60. We are fortified in this view by the order disposing of the servant quarters attached to the main building. Settlement Inspector A suggested that the seven servant quarters be transferred to their occupants. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner did not forthwith agree with the report, himself visited the site and after inspection passed the order for their disposal. It can be safely postulated that if the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was conscientious enough to inspect the servant quarters before he ordered their disposal, he did not pass the order for transfer of the main building without applying his own mind to the merits of the case.
15. The settlement operations involved transfer of lacs of evacuee properties spread all over West Pakistan. The Military authorities who were then governing the country had set a target date for their disposal which necessi--tated radical steps to cope with the settlement work. It was otherwise also expedient to dispose of these properties as early as possible. In the; circumstances there was nothing wrong in law or principle in deputing Settlement Inspectors to make preliminary survey of the properties and process the claim forms filed by their occupants thus enabling the Deputy Settlement Commissioners to pass speedy orders of transfer.
16. The decision in Ghulam Mohyuddin v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and another on which the learned Judges have relied in remanding the case to the Settlement authorities is confined to its own facts. It has no universal application. The relevant facts which are reproduced below appear at page 840 of the Report:- "As already stated, on the filing of the second revision petition challeng--ing the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner in review, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Policy) had put up a detailed note pointing out that not only the question of the divisibility of the house was in dispute but that the entitlement of the respondent No. 3, was also being challenged by the contesting parties. All the connected applications concerning the transfer of this house were also put up and attention of the Chief Settlement Commissioner was drawn to the fact that respondent No. 3's entitlement appeared to have somehow undergone an improvement at the review stage, although in the previous order the same Settlement Commissioner had himself doubted the validity of the said respondent's claim and transferred a portion of the house to him purely on humanitarian grounds. A second inspection of the premises was, in the circumstances, suggested. This ` was done by the Settlement Commissioner (Policy), but the latter in his note only dealt with the question of the divisibility of the house and proposed that all the petitions should be rejected. In these circum--stances, we are of the opinion that it behaved the Chief Settlement Commissioner to apply his own independent mind to the questions raised before him and to deal with the three revision petitions put upbefore him in accordance with law. By merely countersigning on the note of the Settlement Commissioner (Policy), we are clearly of the view, the Chief Settlement Commissioner had not exercised the jurisdiction vested in him in accordance with law and that there was no proper disposal of the revision petitions filed before him."
17. From the facts, reproduced above the Court concluded that the Chief Settlement Commissioner had not applied his own mind to the merits of the three revision petitions before countersigning the report by the Settlement Commissioner (Policy).
18. The facts of the present case are totally different. The Settlement Inspector put up a detailed report covering for pages in which he had dealt with the claim of each occupant of the main building and tabulated the result of the inquiry with remarkable precision. Beneath the note, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner wrote "I agree". When the second report was put up to him as seen, he wrote "I will inspect the site". Later on he passed the order of transfer saying that he had inspected the site and agreed with report of the g inspector. These facts amply bring out that the Deputy Settlement Commis--sioner had applied his own mind and formed an independent judgment before he agreed with the report of Mr. Karam Dad Khan.
19. Moreover all the contestants were heard by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on appeal, and by the Settlement Commissioner and the Chief Settlement Commissioner on revisional side.
20. Each one of the officers applied his mind to the merits of the case and came to an independent decision. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner apportioned the main) building between Maulvi Umar Din and the heirs of Haji Muhammad Sharif. The Additional Settlement Commissioner directed that the portion in possession of Muhammad Hanif be given to him. The Settlement Commis--sioner and the Chief Settlement Commissioner passed orders in variation of the orders passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the Additional Settlement Commissioner. We are therefore, unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that all these proceedings which had C consumed so much public time and private expense should be thrown over board because the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had `merely agreed' with the report submitted by the Settlement Inspector. We, accordingly, feel no hesitation in setting aside the order of remand passed by the High Court.
21. Instead of remanding the case to the High Court which course would entail further delay and uncertainty about the rights of parties we consider it proper to dispose of the writ petitions on their own merits.
22. It will be recalled that for writ petitions were filed in the High Court. Writ Petition No. 2954/11 of 1962 was filed by Maulvi Umar Din, Inamul Haq and Abdul Sattar to challenge the validity of transfer of a portion of the house to Muhammad Hanif. Writ Petition No. 2131/11 of 1962 was filed by them to impugn the transfer to Mian Sunder Ali of the residential portion in his possession. Writ Petition No. 1474 !R of 1973 was filed by Muhammad Hanif on 8th June, 1963, for quashing the orders passed by the Settlement Commissioner dated 8th February, 1961, by which one room on the ground floor was taken away from him. Writ Petition No. 1041/R of 1964 was filed by Mian Sunder Ali on 16th July, 1964, against the refusal by the Settlement authorities to transfer to him the shop on the ground floor.
23. Revision Petitions Nos. 1335 and 1525 filed by Muhammad Hanif and Maulvi Umar Din etc., against each other were dismissed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on the ground that the records in the case had not been summoned by the 13th January, 1962, the terminal date fixed under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) (Amendment) Ordinance 11 of 1962. In the Writ Petitions filed by Muhammad Hanif and Maulvi Umar Din and others it was urged with considerable force that the records had, in fact, been called for by the Chief Settlement Commissioner before 13th January, 1962. The plea is supported by the fact that the revision' petition filed by Mian Sunder Ali was decided by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on merits and allowed on 16th October, 1962, ex facie the record had been summoned before 13th January, 1962, which was also the record in the two revision petitions filed by Muhammad Hanif and Maulvi Umar Din.
24. However, as the impugned order was passed by Khan Farzand Ali Khan with the consent of the parties, there was no justification for interference with that order either by the Chief Settlement D Commissioner or by the High Court. In law the parties were precluded from impugning the legality of that order more particularly in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition No. 2954/11 of 1962 and Writ Petition No. 1974/11 of 1963 are, therefore, liable to be dismissed on this ground.
25. There is also no merit in the claim advanced by Maulvi Umar Din. Jnamul Haq and Abdul Sattar in Writ Petition No. 2131/11 of 1962 against the transfer to Mian Sunder Ali of the residential portion in his possession. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner had rejected his C. H, form and apportioned the entire building between Maulvi Umar Din, Inamul Haq and Abdul Sattar sons of Haji Muhammad Sharif on grounds which were not tenable in law. Once the building was found to be divisible each Ix residential unit was to be transferred as a separate "house". There wasi therefore no competition inter se Mian Sunder Ali, and Maulvi Umar Din, Inamul Haq and Abdul Sattar sons of Haji Muhammad Sharif regarding the transfer of this portion of the building. The extended definition of "possession" in the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act was also not kept in view by the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner. Although a non-allottee Mian Sunder Ali was within the new definition deemed to be in possession and entitled to apply for transfer of the portion in his occupation. The Chief Settlement' Commissioner was, therefore, right in law and on facts in transferring to Mian Sunder Ali the residential portion in his possession. It cannot, therefore, be said that the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in favour of Mian Sunder Ali was without lawful authority to merit interference by the High Court in writ jurisdiction: Writ Petition No. 2131/R of 1962 is liable to be dismissed on this legal plane.
26. We are now left with Writ Petition No. 1041/R of 1964 filed by Mian --Sunder Ali against Maulvi Umar Din and others for quashing the order --passed by the Settlement authorities in so far as his claim for transfer of the shop was rejected. As it transpires on the record Maulvi Umar Din is in occupation of the main portion of the shop and Mian Sunder Ali was in possession of only a part. A temporary partition wall was set up as is mentioned in one of the orders passed by the Settlement authorities.
27. His claim for transfer of the shop was rejected on the ground that he had nor filed C S form for its transfer. Dealing with this aspect of the case, the Chief Settlement Commissioner observed as follows :--- "The Revision Petition as to the shop must be rejected as the petitioner filed no C S form. His claim that he did in fact send one is not' sustainable. The acknowledgment receipt shown to me relates to a letter sent by the petitioner to the Settlement Authorities. Further in the typed revision petition before me the words, "and had submitted the SC from through registered Post" are in ink and clearly added subsequently. Mr. Miran, counsel for the petitioner, frankly stated before me that the addition was not in his handwriting. At the spot also I found the shop really one and the partition seemed to be not a permanent one. The revision petition is therefore dismissed."
28. The plea raised by Mian Sunder Ali that he had filed C S form is, thereforebelied by the record.
29. Even if it was found, though we do not hold it to be so, that Mian Sunder Ali had filed C S form for transfer of the shop to him, the result remains the same. Maulvi Umar Din was a senior allottee and in occupation of major portion of the shop. The Settlement authorities found the shop to be indivisible. Maulvi Umar Din bad, therefore a preferential right for transfer of the whole of the shop.
30. The decision by the Settlement authorities that the shop was indivisible was final. The High Court was not competent to interfere with it in writ jurisdiction. Thus on merits to Mian Sunder Ali had failed to make out a case for transfer of the shop to him.
31. Yet another ground for dismissal of the writ petition by Mian Sunder-- Ali is that it was belated and suffered from laches. The order of the Chief: Settlement Commissioner dated 16-10-1962 was called in question by him on 3-9-1964 i.e. Nearly two years after the order had been passed. It appears that Writ Petition No. 1041/R of 1964 was filed as a counterblast to the Writ Petition filed by Maulvi Umar Din and others against the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner by which the residential portion of the building in his occupation was transferred to him.
32. There is therefore no merits in any of the for Writ Petitions to call for interference with the order passed by the Settlement authorities in writ jurisdiction.
33. In the result we allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court dated 16th November, 1967, whereby the case has been remanded to the Settlement authorities for fresh decision. The Writ Petitions stand dismissed and thereby the final orders of transfer passed in favour of (i) Muhammad Hanif; (ii) Mian Sunder Ali, and (iii) Maulvi Umar Din, Inamul Haq and Abdul Satter are restored.