' The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of having paid the price of the shop in dispute twice, which was allotted to him in 1959, the P.T.D. Is not being issued to him and the respondent has illegally passed the impugned order, dated 26-5-1994, whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs,17,767 as the price of the shop which was originally determined to be Rs,1,920.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner being a refugee claimant from Ferozepur City (India) occupied the disputed shop in the year 1947 applied for its transfer and the same was allotted to him on 24-12-1959 and a P.T.O. Was issued in his favour by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Kasur, on 24-12-1959 and the price of the shop was fixed to be Rs,1,920. The case of the petitioner is that hepaid the said price through his Compensation Book which was duly issued in his favour.
However, the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore, vide his order, dated 16-5-1964 fixed the price of the shop to be Rs,3,020 and the difference was also paid by the petitioner in May and June of 1964 through the Compensation Books of Muhammad Ibrahim and Wali Muhammad with whom he entered into agreements of association respectively on 22-5-1964 and 28-6-1964 but in spite of the full payment P.T.D. Was not issued to him and in fact a Deputy Secretary from the office of the respondent issued a notice to the petitioner on 25-5-1989, which has been attached with this petition as Annexure 'H', for the payment of Rs,3,020 within fifteen days as price of the shop. The issuance of this notice is admitted by the respondent in his parawise comments. The petitioners in order to avoid any complication paid the above said amount on 17-6-1989, the receipt of the deposit of the above said transfer price is attached with the petition Annexure '1'. It is alleged that thereafter the petitioner made repeated visits to the Settlement Department for the issuance of the P.T.D. But of no avail and ultimately he issued a legal notice to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for the issuance of P.T.D. And on being annoyed therewith the respondent has passed the impugned order, dated 26-5-1994, whereby it has been narrated that the petitioner did not pay the sale price from 1964 to 1989 and, therefore, the petitioner was imposed 15% interest plus 5-0% penalty for the said delay and was liable to pay Rs,17,767 as the sale price.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has paid the sale price twice and finally the payment of Rs,3,020 was made by the petitioner on 17-6-1989 under the order, dated 25-5-1989 of the respondent and the respondent has now acted illegally in issuing a fresh order for payment of sale price of Rs,17,767 as he had no lawful authority to review that previous order, dated 25-5-1989 and even otherwise there is no law for imposing or awarding of 15% interest and 50% penalty for the period of delayed payment.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent while opposing the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner did not pay the sale price from 1964 to 1989, therefore, the additional demand has been made from the petitioner in the shape of interest plus duty,
5. Under the notice, dated 25-5-1989, the petitioner admittedly paid the whole price as demanded from him at that time on 17-6-1989, therefore, the demand of payment of additional price and the imposition of interest and penalty through the impugned order, dated 26-5-1994 is illegal. Even otherwise no Settlement Authority is vested with any jurisdiction to review any order. The writ petition is, therefore, accepted, the impugned order, dated 26-5-1994 of respondent is set aside and the respondent is directed to issue the P.T.D. To the petitioner till 7-3-1998. As the order has been written and signed in the absence of the parties or their counsel, therefore, the office is directed to inform the respondent for the compliance in time.