1. MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.-This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 20-6-1969 passed by a Division Bench of the then High Court of West Pakistan at Lahore under clause (10) of the Letters Patent.
2. The dispute in this case relates to property No. SI-109-S-2, Puran Bhagat Street, Katcha Nisbet Road, Lahore. It was occupied by a number of families including Mian Mohammad Din, predecessor of the appellants and Mehr Din, husband of Mst. Sardar Begum respondent. On the 15th of December, 1959, Abdul Ghafoor, Assistant Settlement Commissioner transfer--red the entire house to Mst.
3. Iqbal Begum widow of Mian Mohammad Din on her C. H. Form. She afterwards surrendered by associating in favour of her own sons and daughters who are the appellants before us.
4. It was the case of Mst. Sardar Begum respondent that she had also filed an N. C. H. Form No. LHR. I1I- 1381 dated 8th August, 1959, which was entered in the CSC-II Register, for the transfer of House No. 8.
5. Street No. 109, Katcha Nisbet Road, Lahore to her. She filed a belated appeal against the order dated 15-12-1959 transferring the property in dispute to Mst. Iqbal Begum deceased on the ground that she had also applied for this very property which was disposed of without any notice to her.
6. But on the 18th of August, 1961, her appeal was dismissed by the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Judicial), Lahore Division, Lahore, as time-barred and also on the ground that she had failed to clear the arrears of rent due from her. Her revision against the order was also rejected by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore, on the ground or limitation.
7. The respondent then filed a Writ Petition under Article 98 of the 1962 Constitution against the transfer of the property in dispute to Mst. Iqbal Begum. But a learned Judge of the West Pakistan High Court at Lahore dismissed it for limine. He was of the opinion that according to the relevant entries in the C SC-II Register the respondent had applied for a different house and, therefore, she was not entitled to any notice before the transfer of the house in dispute to Mst. Iqbal Begum.
8. The respondent then filed a belated appeal from the judgment under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court. On the 20th of June, 1969 a Division Bench of the West Pakistan High Court at Lahore, condoned the delay in her appeal and held that under paragraph 8 of the Settlement Scheme No. I she was entitled to he heard before the disposal of the property in dispute by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner to Mst. Iqbal Begum deceased. On this finding the Court in accepting the appeal remitted the case of the transfer of the property to the Settlement Commissioner for a fresh decision between the parties.
9. PLD 1966 SC 276).
10. Under para. 8 of the Settlement Scheme No. 1 the Assistant Settlement Commissioner was bound to have served a notice to all those who may have applied for the transfer. In this connection, it may be mentioned that, in the reported case of Fateh Mohammad v. Maula Bakhsh (PLD 1963 SC 311) the Supreme Court observed that an ex parte order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferring the property in favour of the appellant therein could not be regarded as final order qua the respondents application for transfer which was not even considered. In Mohammad Ashraf and others v. Mohammad Usman and others (1973 SCMR 403) the Supreme Court observed that the N. C. H. Form filed by Chhotey Khan, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents therein, was not disposed of by the competent authority, and that the entire house was transferred to Zahoor Ahmad, predecessor---in-interest of the petitioners before it, without holding an enquiry as required by Settlement Scheme No. 1 and without affording to Chhotey Khan and the other occupants of the building an opportunity of being heard. In these circumstances this Court armed with the High Court in holding that the N. C. H. Form submitted by Chhotey Khan was not disposed of according to law, the transfer order in favour of Zahoor Ahmad was quashed and the case was remanded to the Settlement authorities.
11. This order under appeal does not call for any interference by this Court. There is no force in this appeal which is dismissed. But there is no order as to costs in the circumstances of this case.