' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---This appeal, with the leave of the Court, is 'directed against the judgment dated 20-2-1993 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, passed in Regular Second Appeal No,1065 of 1970.
2. The dispute herein relates to a piece of land measuring fifteen Marlas, situated in Mauza Ghourghashti, Tehsil and District Attock. Nawab Khan,' the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents purchased the (building) land, in dispute, alongwith the machine installed therein open auction dated 27-4-1960 for Rs,9,500, duly confirmed on 20-7-1968 by the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner. In the bid-sheet Exh.D1, the nature of the property is described as "Open Auction of Machine and Building at Ghourghashti". This was followed by a Provisional Transfer Order bearing No, 869430 dated 12-7-1961 in favour of Nawab Khan, wherein "Schedule of Property" is described 'Flour Mills and Building of Piayaray Lal, Ghourgashti, Hazro'. The Transfer Order bearing No, 41721 dated 20-2-1975 was also issued in favour of the legal heirs of the transferee. Sechedule 'A' to Transfer Order shows that Flour Mills, Ghourghashti, owned by evacuee owner Piayaray Lal, was transferred to the transferee, Nawab Khan, through his legal heirs and the extent of right/interest transferred to them was 100 per cent.
3. The appellants instituted a suit on 3-5-1967 for possession by ejectment of the respondents from the land, in dispute, with a decree for perpetual injunction, restraining them from taking possession of the property, in dispute, on the ground that the same was allotted to them as agricultural land, on a portion thereof, there was a house wherein a machine was installed, which was allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent No,1 and that the auction-purchaser, after some time, removed the superstructure from the land and unauthorizedly occupied the same.
4. In view of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence led by them, the trial Court by its judgment dated 28-3-1969, decreed the suit of the appellants. The respondents' Appeal No, 230/164 of 1969 was partly accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Kampbellpur vide judgment dated 18-4-1970, whereby the decree was upheld to the extent of sixteen Marlas only and the suit of the appellants qua fifteen Marlas of land, where Flour Mills stood, was dismissed. The appellants assailed the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court before the High Court, in Regular Second Appeal No, 1065 of 1970, which was also dismissed by the learned Judge in Chambers vide judgment dated 20-2-1993.
5. Leave to appeal was granted with a view to examine the following plea raised by the appellants:-- "The learned counsel has stated that Nawab Khan, the predecessor-ininterest of the respondents, purchased the machine and building in open auction on 27-4-1960 for Rs,9,500.00 only, therefore, after the removal of the machine and material of the building the land reverted to the petitioners.
The respondents cannot claim the land, as it was never transferred to them. The Bid was for auction of machine and building. The PTO issued in favour of the transferee also show that Flour Mill and Building of Piaray Lal an evacuee were transferred to the respondents."
6. We have heard Mr. Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, learned Advocate-on Record for the appellants 8 well as Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the respondents at considerable length and have gone through the impugned judgment and the material on record. We notice that the view taken by the High Court is based on the ground that the Lower Appellate Court had rightly held that the appellants were owners of land measuring sixteen Marlas whereas the respondents were transferees of Flour Mill measuring fifteen Marlas. The learned Judge in Chambers, after proper reappraisal of evidence on record, also recorded the finding:-- "In the Special Jamabandi Exh.P7, it is recorded as 'Ghair Mumkin' and not assessed to land revenue. In the year 1955-56 the entry is that there is a flour mill on an area of 15 Marlas, therefore, the property being not of agricultural character has rightly been put to auction as a flour mill. The transfer in favour of respondents having not been challenged, the appellants cannot challenge the transfer of the property in dispute .On the ground that it was an agricultural land and could not have been transferred as a flour mills. Hence these questions stand finalized under the provisions of the repealed settlement laws: The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, is repelled."
' Mr. Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, the learned Advocate-on-Record for the appellant, took serious exception to the said finding of the learned Judge in Chambers on the ground that the installation of a small Flour Mill on a part of agricultural land could not take the land under the Flour Mill out of definition of agricultural land as grinding of agricultural produce shall be deemed to be a purpose subservient to agriculture. We are not impressed by the submissions made by Mr. Imtiaz Muhammad Khan. It is not denied that the transfer order reflects that 100% of the extent of right and full interest of the property, in dispute, has been transferred to Nawab Khan, the predecessor-in- interest of the respondents. In any event, the question whether the property in dispute has been transferred to the appellants or the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, is essentially a question of fact. The learned Judge in Chambers has concurred with the finding of the trial Court in this question, against the appellants, after proper appraisal of evidence on record. Learned counsel for the appellants was unable to show that the said finding recorded by the learned Judge of the High Court is not based on proper inferences drawn from the material on record, therefore, no exception could be taken to the said finding in the present proceedings. Clearly, the presumption of regularity arises in favour of a party holding Transfer Order until contrary is established. Here, onus was on the appellants to show that the land underneath the property was not transferred to the respondents: The appellants failed to establish their title. The view taken by the High Court, as reproduced above, seems to be quite just and fair and has not been shown to suffer from any legal or factual infirmity. It is established on record that the interest of Piaray Lal evacuee, with respect to the machine and building including the land underneath was transferred to the respondents in open auction by the Settlement Authorities. Admittedly, no objections were raised for deletion of the property in dispute from the auction list by the appellants at any stage of the proceedings.
Viewed in this perspective, the controversy raised herein is hit by the doctrine of past and closed transaction. Furthermore, the High Court had duly attended to the various documents on record and had rightly found that the property transferred to the respondents was in order and did not suffer from any illegality.
7. The result is that this appeal has no merit and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.