' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J..---This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 20- 7-1992 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, whereby in Constitutional jurisdiction it set aside the order of remand made by the Settlement Commissioner.
2. On 5-10-1966 Muhammad Azam, respondent No,1, filed an L.S. Form under Settlement Scheme No, VIII for the transfer of shop No,U/1239 situate in Dingi Khui, Rawalpindi. After satisfying himself that respondent No,1 was in undisputed possession of the shop on the target date and had continued to remain so, a Deputy Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 12-1-1973 transferred the shop to him. By another order dated 6-2-1974 he fixed the price and rental dues which were to be paid by the transferee.
3. On 31-5-1974 the appellant, Muhammad Ilyas (since dead), filed a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner. He stated in his grounds of revision that Property No, U/1239 was neither a shop nor evacuee in nature; on the other hand, it was owned by Municipal Committee, Rawalpindi; consequently, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was not competent under the law to transfer it to anyone. He further alleged that he was in possession of Shop No,U/1240 and under the cover of the transfer order that he had obtained in respect of Property No,U/1239 respondent No, 1 had taken over a part of Shop No . U/1240.
4. The learned Settlement Commissioner thought that there was some confusion with regard to the nature of Property No,U/1239 as according to the record of the Settlement Department it belonged to the Municipal Committee; further, it was not borne on the survey register of the Rehabilitation Department. To remove the confusion', he, by his order dated 13-3-1974, accepted the revision petition, set aside the order of transfer made in respect of Property No: U/1239 and remanded the matter to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for a fresh decision after hearing the parties.
5. On 17-6-1974 respondent No, 1 filed a Constitution petition in the High Court to call in question the legality of the order of the Settlement Commissioner. After examining the record a learned Single Judge found that the Settlement Commissioner had not taken into consideration the material which was available on the record of the Department which clearly indicated that Property No,U/1239 was not only evacuee in nature but constituted an independent unit, separate from Property No, 1240; accordingly, he declared the order of remand made by the Settlement Commissioner to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
6. VLeave to appeal was granted to the appellant with the following observations.
"The Settlement Authorities have the exclusive jurisdiction in the matter within their competence.
The learned Settlement Commissioner did not pass any final order but remitted the matter back for the elucidation of certain points which could affect the very jurisdiction of the Settlement Authorities one way or the other."
' The main question for consideration in this appeal is if there was any confusion with regard to Property No,U/1239 which needed a reconsideration of its transfer. As rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge in the High Court no such confusion existed. From the record placed before us it appears that Properties Nog.1238 1239 and 1240 belonged to the same person, namely Sawami Das. In the municipal record they were assigned separate numbers indicating that the evacuee owner wanted them to be shown as independent units. From the auction lists prepared by the Settlement Department. It appears nothing on the record to show that Property No,0/1239 which was later transferred to respondent No,1 was on the eve of Independence owned by the Municipal Committee. It is remarkable that the Municipal Committee has never agitated against its allotment to respondent No,
1. The learned Single Judge in the High Court examined the record of the Department and found that as far back as 28-2-1966 a Deputy Settlement Commissioner after careful and elaborate examination of the record had found that Property No,U/1239 was shop on the ground floor while property No,0/1240 was a Chaubara overlying the same. Apparently, while making the order of remand these facts were not noticed by the Settlement Commissioner. In the circumstances, the High Court was justified in holding that the said order was unsupportable. We find no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. However there will be no order as to costs.