Property No. 624, Ward No. 8-H, Multan which is a composite property, was in possession, inter alia, of the petitioner, respondent No. 4 who are both non-claimants. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 18th November, 1960, transferred the entire properties residential and commercial premises to respondent No. 4. The appeal filed by the petitioner on 12th February, 1962 was dismissed as barred by time on the ground that the petitioner was extremely negligent in filing it. The Additional Settlement Commissioner, however, observed, that in view of a partition wall, the property was divisible into two independent units. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was also rejected on 16th October, 1962 for the reason that he could not substantiate to have submitted any form. It was also observed in the order that the property was divisible and directed that the other portions be included in the evacuee pool.
2. The petitioner did not challenge this order further. Respondent No. 4, however, filed Writ Petition No. 2851-R-62 which was accepted by this Court on 4th March, 1966, and the case remanded to the Settlement Commissioner for fresh decision with the following observations :- "It is to be noted that none of the Settlement Authorities had transferred any portion of this property to them (petitioners) and after the decision of the Settlement Commissioner they did not proceed any further in the matter. The Settlement Commissioner might get this factor into consideration as to whether when those persons have not showed any further interest in this case, it is worthwhile to take up their revision petition or not."
3. The case came up before the Settlement Commissioner again but he dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner for non-prosecution. This time the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 18-R-71 which was accepted on 27th June, 1975 and the case remanded to be beard again.
4. The matter finally came up before the Settlement Commissioner who vide his order dated 10th December, 1975, dismissed the petitioner's case for the reason that he could not prove the filing of his form and that had no explanation for the delay in filing the appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner.
5. It is now contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that none of the authorities below bad considered the question of delay in accordance with law. He referred to one of his grounds in his appeal dated 12th of February, 1962 to show that the order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was ex parte and no intimation had been sent to him as required under para. 8 of Settlement Scheme No. 1. The impugned order is also challenged on the ground that none of the authorities had considered the question of divisibility though they were required to do so in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Aga Shaukat A.I v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and another (PLD 1973 SC 124).
6. The learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submitted that as petitioner had not been able to prove before any of the Settlement Authorities that he had submitted a form, he had no locus standi to come to this Court. Reference in this connection was made to the order dated 16th October, 1962 passed by the Settlement Commissioner and the one now impugned in this Court. It is to be noted that the petitioner had not even in this Court explained his failure before the Settlement Authorities to prove the submission of his form. He has however, relied on two postal receipts placed on record as Annexures B' and 'F' in this respect, but the same would not help him at all. The Settlement Authorities had, as it is quite clear from the orders placed on the record, specifically asked him to prove the submission of his form but he failed. The Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 16th October, 1962, specifically observed that petitioner "has not been able top substantiate that he has filed any NCH form or has cleared the rent. In view of this he is not entitled to get the property". Petitioner did not challenge that order of the Settlement Commissioner. He shall, therefore, be deemed to have accepted the finding of fact about the non- submission of his form and cannot be heard at this stage, on the basis of the two receipts that the form had in fact been submitted. The contention of the learned counsel that he did have that right in view of the High Court directing fresh disposal of the revision petition is of no help to him at all as he was never aggrieved of the finding against him. Further, any evidence of material that was not placed for scrutiny before the Settlement authority cannot be allowed to produced here and no inquiry into its correctness or genuineness shall be made in this jurisdiction.
7. It is to be noted that the Settlement Commissioner in his order made the following specific observations :- 'That the date for submitting the NCH form was 10-11-59. The petitioners did not submit any such form. It is claimed on their behalf that their father had despatched such form to the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 9-12-59. There is no evidence to show that the petitioner's father had really submitted the form to the Chief Settlement Commissioner. I asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to show me the form or its receipt either on the record or from the petitioner's person but he had failed to show it. It is thus clear that, as the learned Settlement Commissioner had observed in his order dated 16-10-62 the petitioners were not able to substantiate that they had filed any NCH form.
8. In any case, this Court, while remanding the case in Writ Petition No. 2851-R-62 had pointed out that as the petitioner bad not shown any interest in the case the Settlement Commissioner was to see if it was worthwhile to take up the revision petition or not. What the High Court meant was that the Settlement Commissioner should consider if the petitioner had a locus standi and if the revision petition should at all be considered in view of the attitude of the petitioner. That observation cuts at the very root of the petitioner's stand and his argument as discussed in para. 6 above, cannot be available to him. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner had been given a right to once again raise the point of submission of his form.
9. There is another important aspect of the case also. It is stated in para. 5 of the order of the Settlement Commissioner and has been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had submitted form under Settlement Scheme No. VIII also on 25th October, 1973. That form was, however, rejected on 27th March, 1974 but the petitioned did not challenge that order further. The learned counsel stated before me that the petitioner omitted to do so as he was pursuing his remedy under Scheme No. 1. But why should he have submitted his form under Scheme VIII if he was pursuing his case already under Scheme I? There is no explanation for this conduct. In any case, in order to succeed under Scheme I, the petitioner must have shown the submission of his form thereunder and his right to proceed against the impugned order without having challenged the order dated 16th October, 1962. It is quite clear that the order passed against him in 1962 became final and cannot be re-opened indirectly.
10. As for the objection that the failure on the part of the Settlement Authority to have decided the case, without first deciding the question of divisibility, rendered their decision unlawful, it is to be noted that the petitioner, in view of what has been said above, has no locus standi to raise that point. Further, he acquiesced in the order dated 16th October, 1962 and did not challenge the order dated 27th March, 1974. The property is admittedly one and there was only one applicant. The grievance about divisibility could be made by the Settlement Authority only, in the circum stances of the case. I, therefore, do not think that the petitioner has any case at all.
For the reasons given above, there is no merit in this petition, which is dismissed. The parties, however, shall be left to bear their own costs.