1. QAISAR KHAN, J.-The dispute in this case relates to evacuee house bearing No. B-XIX-19-S-96 situated in Gujranwala Hakam Din (predecessor in interest of the petitioners herein) was in possession of this property, On the 23rd of March of 1953 the Rehabilitation Officer gave a notice to Hakam Din to vacate the house as he was a local and bad many houses. Hakam Din contested this notice before the Deputy Rehabilitation Officer and the Deputy Rehabilitation Officer by his order dated the 23rd of August 1954 held that since Hakam Din bad carried out repairs in the house at his own expense he could retain possession up to the 31st of May for adjustment of his expense towards the rent of the house. Two appeals were filed against this order by two claimants, namely.
2. Muhammad A9ghar and Abdur Rashid. The Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner however dismissed both the appeals on the 270 of October 1955. The revision petition of Muhammad Asghar and Abdur Rashid against the aforesaid order was also dismissed by the Rehabilitation Commissioner on the 4th of April 1956. On a review petition filed by Muhammad Asghar and Abdur Rashid the Rehabilitation Commissioner by his order dated the 3rd of July 1956 held that Hakam Din be ejected as he was a local and owned sufficient property. Hakam Din filed a review petition against the aforesaid order but his review petition was dismissed on 25th of September 1956. He filed a writ petition against the order dated the 3 of July 1956 in the High Court bat his writ petition was dismissed on the 29th of February 1960.
3. A fresh notice of ejectment was therefore issued to Hakam Din. Hakam Din thereupon applied to the Deputy Custodian for a declaration that since the structure belonged to him he could not be ejected and obtained a stay order. The Deputy Custodian by his order dated the 28th of Novemberrd 1957 declared Hakam Din the owner of tale structure and not liable to ejectment. Muhammad Asghar and Abdur Rashid who were respondents before the Deputy Custodian filed an appeal before the Addi--tional Custodian. The appeal vas accepted and the order of the Deputy Custodian was set aside. Hakam Din filed a revision petition before the Custodian but it eras dismissed on the 31st of July 1959. This order was not further questioned by Hakam Din.
4. After the order of the Rehabilitation Commissioner dated the 3rd of July 1956 for the ejectment of Hakam Din the Deputy Rehabilitation officer on the 27th of November 1956 recommended the allotment of the house to Muhammad Asghar and Abdur Rashid.
5. In the meantime on the commencement of the Settlement operations Hakam Din applied for the transfer of the house on L. H. Form. On the other hand Umar Din fatter of Muhammad Asghar who in the meantime bad died and Abdur Rashid filed C. H. Forms for the transfer of the house. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 31st of May 1960 rejected the forms of both the parties and transferred the house to Muhammad Ismail. Umar Din arid Abdur Rashid filed an appeal against this order and the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner held (bat Muhammad Ismail bad been put into the house by Hakam Din to avoid ejectment end that his C. H.
6. Form was also suspicious. He therefore accepted the appeal, set aside the transfer in favour of Muhammad Ismail and ordered the ejectment of Muhammad Ismail and Hakam Din. Muhammad Ismail alone filed a revision but it was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner on the 31 of December 1960. A further revision petition by him was also dismissed on the 4th of April 1951.
7. Muhammad Ismail filed a writ petition against this order belt it was dismissed on the 12th of May 1961. His Letters Patent Appeal also failed on the 7th of July 1961. In this order the Letters Patent Bench also held that Muhammad Isma il bad been inducted in the house try Hakam Din.
8. After the dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal of Muhammad Ismail, Hakam Din filed review petition against the order dated the 4th of April 1961 which was dismissed on the 26th of February 1962.
9. Hakam Din then filed an undated application to the thief Settlement Commissioner for the transfer of the house to him as local in possession as the value of the house was less than Re. 10,000. This application was ultimately received by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner the Deputy Settlement Commissioner did not pass any order on it himself as the case bad gone earlier up to the Chief Settlement Commissions: but made a recommendation on it that since the value of the house was less than Rs. 10,000, it be transferred to Hakam Din as a local in possession. No order was however pissed on this recommendation.
10. Hakam Din then filed a miscellaneous application to the Chief Settle--ment Commissioner for reopening of the case but the Chief Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 30 of Jute 1962 refused to reopen the case. A fresh notice of ejectment of Hakam Din and Muhammad Ismail was therefore issued on the 22nd of September 1962. Hakam Din challenged the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated the 30th of June 1962 by a writ petition in the High Court but his writ petition was dismissed on the 22nd of October 1965. His Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed on the 2nd of February 1966.
11. Having failed everywhere Hakam Din addressed a petition on the 18th of July 1966 to the President of Pakistan for directing the Settlement authorities to decide the case afresh as he was entitled to the transfer of the house on the basis of his possession, the value of the house being leas than Re.
12. 10.000. Hakam Din was however informed on the 14th of February 1969 that nothing could be done in the cats as he had lost it even up to the High Court. On the 12th of April 1959 Umar Din and Abdur Rashid applied to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for the forcible eviction of Hakam Din and to avoid ejectment Hakam Din challenged the genuineness of the allotment of the house in favour of Umar Din and Abdur Rashid by application dated the 18th of April IV69. After a thorough Inquiry Hakam Din was informed on the 20th of May 1969 that the allotment was genuine. On the 29th of September 1969 the Settlement Commissioner on the instructions of the Chief Settlementst th Commissioner directed the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to forcibly eject Hakam Din and to put Umar Din and Abdur Rashid In possession. Hakam Din thereupon filed a civil suit for permanent injunction restraining the Settlement authorities from ejecting him but his suit was dismissed on the 8th of January 1970. Hakam Din then on the 10th of January 1970 addressed a miscellaneous application to the Chief Settlement Commissioner and on this application the Chief Settlement Commissioner on the 19th of January 1970 directed the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to send a factual report about the points raised by Hakam Din. After some inquiry the Deputy Settlement Commissioner submitted a report on the 10th of March 1.970 to we effect that the allotment order in favour of Umar Din and Abdur Rashid was forgery, that no show-cause notice was issued to Hakam Din and that his L. H. Form was withheld in view of the ejectment order issued against him. On the 2nd of September 1970 the Settlement Commissioner directed the Deputy Settle--ment Commissioner to pass a judicial order instead of merely making a recommendation and to dispose of the L.H. Form of Hakam Din under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner there upon by his order dated the 28th of November 1970 held that the allotment order in favour of Umar Din and Abdur Rashid was a forgery and transferred the house to Hakam Din being available for transfer.
13. Umar Din challenged this order dated the 20th of November 1970 of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner In writ petition in the High Court and a learned Single Judge by his order dated the 14th of November 1973 held that the order dated the 10th January 1970 of the Chief Settlement Commissioner by which he directed the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to reopen the matter to reconsider the genuineness of tae allotment in favour of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and the validity of notice under section 29, was wholly without jurisdiction and therefore all subsequent proceedings by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner culminating in the purported transfer of the property in favour of Hakam Din on his L. H. Form stood vitiated.
14. Noor Hussain and others, the heirs of Hakam Din, who had died In the meantime filed a petition for special have to appeal against this order dated 14-11-1973 of the High Court. This Court however, by its order dated 21.6-1974 refused to grant leave and dismissed the petition. Noor Hussain and others have filed this present petition for review of the order dated 21-6-1974. After hearing Noor Hussain petitioner in person and going through the order dated 11-6-1974 of this Court, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this petition. No error patent on the face of the record could be pointed out by the petitioner in the impugned order. His assertion that the settlement authorities and the High Court were left; with no jurisdiction after P. T. D. Had been issued to him has been repelled in the impugned order and rightly as the Settlement authorities had no jurisdiction to order the transfer of the house to him and to Issue a P. T. D. To him alter be had lost his case upto the High Court. There is, therefore, nothing in this petition and it is dismissed.