' NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.---Petitioner Mrs. Bukhtawar under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 seeks leave to appeal against judgment, dated 18th February, 2000 of a learned Division Bench of High Court of Sindh, whereby the C.P. No,S-8 of 1994 filed by the respondents Nos.1 to 9 as legal heirs of one Abdul Majid son of Karim Dad, was allowed and the order dated 9-12-1993 of Additional Deputy Commissioner No,1 Hyderabad and all subsequent actions taken, documents executed thereunder, were set aside.
2. Briefly stated the case of the respondents is that their predecessor-in- interest namely, Karim Dad, was transferred House No,B/92 Tando Allahyar by the Settlement Authorities. On 2-5-1967, provisional transfer order was issued to him which was followed by permanent transfer deed (PTD) dated 18-1-1968. In the PTD the property was described as "House No,B/92, Tando Allahyar".
Accordingly his name was mutated in the City Survey Record.
3. He (Karim Dad) expired on 9-5-1971 leaving behind three sons namely Abdul Majid, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 9, Muhammad Hanif, Abdul Hamid and a widow Mst. Umedan, whose names were mutated in the record of City Survey. After sometime, said Muhammad Hanif Abdul, Hamid and Mst. Umedan sold their respective shares in said property in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents through conveyance deed dated 8-7- 1980.
4. The case of the petitioner is that her husband namely Ghulam Ali on 30-11-1959 had filed Form "P" in the Office of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Hyderabad for transfer of a portion of said property to him and a demand notice for Rs,2,025 was issued. It is alleged that he had paid the said amount to the concerned authorities. On 26-7-1993, the petitioner applied for transfer of 132-4 sq.Yds. From the area of said House viz. B/92.
5. It appears that the respondent No,10, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad by order dated 9-12-1993 allowed the transfer of the area applied for and PTD was issued to her. Above order was challenged before High Court through Petition No,S-8 of 1994, which was allowed. Now the order of High Court has been impugned in this petition.
6. Learned High Court having taken into consideration the entire facts of the case and the case law cited, reached the conclusion that neither deceased Ghulam Ali nor the petitioner pursued the matter before the Settlement Authorities nor paid the price as indicated in demand notice.
Therefore, said property was transferred to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents.
Learned High Court also upheld the submissions made on behalf of the respondents that said entire property was permanently transferred to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents as early as 18-1-1967 and the respondent No,10 had no jurisdiction to reopen the matter and decide it afresh as all Evacuee Laws, including the Act XVIII of 1958 had been repealed with effect from 30-6- 1974. High Court also held that, thereafter, the Settlement Authorities ceased to exist and they could not deal with any property, which had gone out of compensation pool. High Court also held that respondent No,10 as notified officer, was not competent to entertain any application or transfer any property, which already stood transferred.
6-A. It is contended by Mr. M.M. Aqil, learned counsel for the petitioner that the total area of Survey No,B/92 was 336-4 sq.Yds. And out of which an area of 175/8 sq.Yds. Was transferred to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents and since area of 132-4 sq.Yds. Was still available the same was transferred by the competent authority to the petitioner. Learned counsel also argued that the application of the petitioner on "P" form was pending since 30-11-1959 and, till its disposal, the entire property could not be transferred in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents.
7. Above contentions are devoid of any force. It appears from record that entire area of said property was transferred to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. This fact impliedly has been admitted by the petitioner at page 11 (para. 10) of the paper book when she stated that by misrepresentation and manipulation excess area was shown in the PTD issued in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. Although, the petitioner claims that the amount shown in the demand notice was paid by her husband, but nothing has been brought on record to substantia this assertion. Learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to point out any document which could prove the factum of payment of said amount and he was not able to do so. Learned High Court, has rightly held that even if for the sake of argument it is assumed that the husband of the petitioner had applied for transfer of a portion of, said property, his application was rightly consigned to record as it was not pursued. High Court has also rightly held that since the property stood transferred as back as 18-1-1968, it had become past and closed transaction and no proceedings with regard to its correctness or otherwise could be initiated.
8. Findings of the High Court are perfectly correct and not open to any exceptions. Under the circumstances, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.