' The dispute in this case is about a plot measuring 2 mar/as and 81 sq. Feet bearing No, B-19.36-S- 59 situated in Mohallah Guru Nana Para, Gujranwala Town. The case of the petitioner is that he has raised some construction on this plot and on that basis (apparently under Settlement Scheme No, VI) applied for its transfer. However, the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 18-8-1965 held that despite the issuance of four notices the petitioner had not cared to come and seemed to be disinterested in the matter. He, therefore, directed that the plot should be disposed of by an auction.
2. The petitioner filed an appeal on 19-6-1966 but without any success as the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner on 23-6-1966 on the ground that as he himself had confirmed the auction, therefore, he could not review that matter in the garb of an appeal.
3. The petitioner filed a revision petition which also met the same fate and was dismissed by the learned Settlement Commissioner on 20-10-1966 on the ground that no revision against the order of an Additional Settlement Commissioner was maintainable before him. For this purpose he relied upon section 22 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act XXVIII of 1958 which provided that "save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, every order made by any officer appointed under this Act shall not be questioned in any Court."
4. The petitioner has come up in Writ Petition against the aforesaid proceedings and orders to this Court.
5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the view of the learned Settlement Commissioner that a revision against the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner was not maintainable is without lawful authority. The contention has force. Section 20 (3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act XXVIII of 1958 at the relevant time read as follows:- "A Settlement Commissioner specially empowered in this behalf by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, may at any time, call for the record of any case or proceeding under this Act in which an Additional Settlement Commissioner or a Deputy Settlement Commissioner or an Assistant Settlement Commissioner under his jurisdiction has passed an order, relating to the entitlement of a person to the transfer of a property or to a matter involving title for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such order, and may pass such order in relation thereto as he thinks fit."
' This will show that the Settlement Commissioner did possess jurisdiction to consider the entitlement of the petitioner with regard to the property in the dispute and his view to the contrary was against the very provisions and letter of the law on the subject. In this connection it may be pointed out that reference to section 22 on the part of the learned Settlement Commissioner was not apt, because, that section is prefixed with the sentence "save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act" which means that finality to an order of a Settlement Official was subject to other provisions of the Act namely, of appeal and revision etc. The learned Settlement Commissioner does not seem to have applied correct law on the subject. In this respect the learned Settlement Commissioner thus failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law with the obvious result that the case shall have to be remanded to him for fresh decision in accordance with law for the disposal of the aforesaid revision petition which in the eye of law will be considered to be pending before him.
6. At this stage it may be mentions(' that in pursuance of the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 18-8-1965 the plot was auctioned in favour of Abdul Hamid respondent No, 2 and a P. T. O. No, 701291 was issued in his favour. Later on the auction was confirmed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 7-6-1966 and a P. T. D. For a part of this property was issued on 28-2-1967. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has Wed a photostat copy of an application of Abdul Hamid respondent No, 2 showing that he himself was not prepared for taking to whole plot in auction and it was on that basis that only a part of the plot was given to him, though the auction had taken place for whole of the plot. He submits that the legal effect of this development should have been that the entire auction should have been cancelled and not that the plot should have been disposed of only in part. As I have no intention to dilate upon the merits of the case and I am proposing to remand the case to the learned Settlement Commissioner, therefore, I need not express any views on this aspect of the matter and the parties will be at liberty to advance this or such other pleas as may be available to them before the learned Settlement Commissioner who will be competent to deal with the same in accordance with law.
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that the order of the learned Settlement Commissioner is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, inasmuch as, he has refused to exercise jurisdiction, which according to law at the relevant time vested in him. The said order is quashed and the case is remanded to the learned Settlement Commissioner for fresh decision in accordance with the observations herein before made. There shall he no order as to costs.
Petiiion accepted. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.