' Petitioner's predecessor-in-interest was transferred portion 'A' and the respondent No, 2 portion 'B' of house No, SI-110-S-5. Gawalmandi, Lahore by the Settlement authorities. Both transferees were issued Permanent Transfer Deeds. The petitioner filed an ejectment application against the respondent claiming that two rooms in possession of the latter were part of portion 'A' transferred to his predecessor-in-interest and the respondent had failed to pay rent. The respondent contested the application and said that the rooms were part of portion 'B' transferred to him. He produced a certified copy from the Settlement Department of the demarcation plan Exh. R.
1. The learned Rent Controller, however, advised the petitioner to have "final and determined order" regarding the demarcation from the Settlement Department and dismissed the application vide order dated 21-12-1974. The petitioner filed an application before the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The latter held that the Permanent Transfer Deeds having been issued to both the parties, he had become functus officio and that after the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 he had no jurisdiction in the matter. This is vide order dated 12-6-76. The petitioner has challenged this order by means of a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had not applied to the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner for any decision in respect of transfer made to the parties, or, for re-opening the matter of transfer. The petitioner had applied for the clarification of the division. It is, however, added that there was no dispute pending in respect of the transfer made to either party and that of course was concluded with the issuance of Permanent Transfer Deeds to both the parties, but all the same, the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner was entitled to and had the jurisdiction to clarify the previous orders of transfer. Learned counsel has referred to S. Anwar Hussain Sani v. Sarfraz Ahmad and 2 others (1).
3. The learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner was absolutely right in saying that after the issuance of Permanent Transfer Deed, he had become functus officio which means that he having discharged his duty was no more seized of the matter. It is just like an actor who has played his part and gone through the exit. He is no more on stage. Moreover, the Statute under which the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner exercised powers and was conferred jurisdiction had itself been repealed. Along with the repeal of the Statute, all the functionaries thereunder have also ceased to exist. A person or an authority who has ceased to exist can hardly be
(1) PLD 1971 SC 669 ' asked a question or requested to make a clarification of what he had done when he existed. Dead answer nobody from this planet. The case relied upon is, thus, not applicable to the facts of the case now. As for Act XIV of 1975, only pending and specified cases can be disposed of. As admitted by the learned counsel, the present case was not pending at the relevant time. Therefore, this Statute has no application.
4. In view of what has been stated above, there is no force in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.