' This writ petition calls in question the order dated 21-12-1985 of respondent No,1 whereby he dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order, dated 11-6-1985 of respondent No,2 who allowed that appeal of the private respondents against the order, dated 28- 8-1983 of A.C./Collector, Pasrur, Sub-Division and dismissed the ejectment petition filed by the petitioner against the private respondents.
2. The admitted facts of the case are that the suit land was owned by the petitioner/his predecessors-in-interest. The occupancy rights vested in non-Muslim evacuees. These were treated as evacuee property and upon the Constitution of the compensation pool under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 formed part of the said pool. Ultimately these rights were conferred upon the private respondents in lieu of their verified claims. The Collector, Pasture Sub-Division decreed the suit of the petitioner solely on the ground that the private respondents had not deposited the compensation in accordance with the provisions of section 114 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. On appeal respondent No,2 corrected the manifest legal error as the said section 114 does not apply to the evacuee properties on its own terms. These provisions were made applicable to evacuee properties by section 14-B added to the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 by virtue of the Amending Act XXXVI of 1974. According to the said provisions of law where the proprietary rights in the land vested in the local Muslim owners and the occupancy rights therein have been settled under the provisions of the said Act of 1958, then the compensation will be payable to the landlords by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and that too from the compensation pool. The private respondents, therefore, were under no obligation whatsoever to pay any compensation. I may add here that in the limine hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the case of Ashraf and others v. Additional Deputy Commissioner (C)/Additional Settlement Commissioner (L) and others NLR 1984 SCJ 179. The said report is a leave granting order and a perusal of the same makes it a case completely distinct from the case in hand in view of the admitted facts of the case narrated above. No other point has been urged.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a grievance that even the Chief Settlement Commissioner had not paid any compensation to the petitioner who admittedly was the proprietor of the land. I am afraid in this petition which has arisen out of a matter of ejectment no relief can be provided to the petitioner. However, if so advised, the petitioner should approach the Chief Settlement Commissioner/competent authority for award of compensation in accordance with law.
4. The impugned order does not suffer from any defect calling for interference by this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations.