' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---By this common judgment we intend to dispose of above civil petitions, which have arisen out of a consolidated judgment dated 30-10-2001, passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, in Writ Petition No,19-R of 1989 and Civil Revision No,94-D of 1989, respectively.
2. Briefly stated the case of petitioner Muhammad Ayub, is that Property No,B-VIII-18-S-34, Jhelum, was a house, which was an evacuee property according to Excise and Taxation Record for the year 1947-48, and it was owned by an evacuee Dhan Raj Shah comprising 11 rooms on an area measuring 11 Marlas. According to survey report, relating to the year 1959, it was in occupation of Hafiz Rehmat Ullah, Abdul Khaliq and Muhammad Ismail; that Muhammad Ismail, occupant, was the only claimant, who submitted Form NCH-141 in the Settlement Department and was transferred the abovesaid property by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Jhelum, vide order dated 11-2- 1964. He entered into an agreement of association with the petitioner on 30-5-1964, which was accepted by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on the same day. The transfer order in favour of the abovesaid Muhammad Ismail was challenged on the ground that there were other occupants also. The Additional Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, vide order dated 23-4-1967 remanded the case back to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner with a direction to ascertain the fact as to whether any other claimant apart from Muhammad Ismail was also living in the said house, it was also directed that the Masjid Committee be also heard and directions were issued for the disposal of their forms. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 25-10-1967 held that the transferee Muhammad Ismail was the occupant of a portion of the disputed house and he was the only person who had applied for the transfer of the disputed property and PTD for full unit was ordered to be issued in the name of the petitioner Muhammad Ayub (deceased). Masjd Committee and Abdul Khaliq, whose form had been rejected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, assailed the order of the D.S.D., and the Additional Settlement Commissioner rejected their appeals on 9-1-1968. It is also alleged that after the completion of the formalities, PTD was issued in the name of the petitioner on 19-1-1977 in regard to the abovesaid Property No,34.
One Mst. Rahiman, the sister-in-law of respondent Abdul Rahim, was the occupant of a portion of the abovesaid house and after her death the portion came into possession of Abdul Rahim respondent No,3, and the property was re-numbered in 1980-81 as B-VIII-9-S-27. The petitioner sought the ejectment of Abdul Rahim from the house in question under the Rent Restriction Laws and through the reply of Abdul Rahim, the petitioner came to know that the portion in possession of respondent No,3 had been renumbered as House No,B-VIII-9-S-29 which had been transferred to respondent Abdul Rahim under Settlement Scheme No,IX and on further inspection of the record, the petitioner allegedly came to know that on 6-12-1980 the respondent applied under Settlement Scheme No,IX for the transfer of property bearing No,B-VIII-9-S-29, measuring 4 Marlas, as an evacuee property previously owned by an evacuee Goramal son of Jodha Ram. According to the petitioner, no property bearing No,29 existed independently, and the portion transferred to respondent was illegally carved out from the Property No,34. It is also alleged that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 6-4-1981, while disposing of the form of the contesting respondent under Settlement Scheme No,IX, after spot inspection, held that the respondent had constructed two rooms, Deori, Bath Room and Kitchen on a piece of land measuring 4 Marlas and that as there was no mention of the abovesaid Property No,29, in the Settlement Record, the said property was transferred to respondent by allocating it a new number of 29. The transfer deed issued in favour of respondent No,3 on 14-4-1981 shows that it was an evacuee property owned by Hans Raj son of Goramal.
3. Feeling aggrieved, on 24-10-1981, against the aforesaid order dated 6-4-1981, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition No,48 of 1981 before the Administrator (R.P.), which was dismissed vide order dated 5-11-1981. It may be mentioned here that the order dated 5-11-1981 of the Administrator was never assailed by the petitioner. However, a revision petition. Bearing No,10 of 1982, was filed by one Noor Ahmad against the respondent regarding Property No,B-VIII-9-S-29, which stood transferred to him by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Jhelum, vide order dated 6-4-1981, on the similar ground that the Property No,29 was not entered in the Record of the Settlement Department and that portion of another property No,B-VIII-15-S-5 stood transferred to him as a plot. The Administrator (R.P.) vide order dated 22-6-1982 came to the conclusion that the allegations levelled by Noor Ahmad against the respondent needed further investigation and, therefore, the case was remitted back to the Deputy Administrator (R.P.), Jhelum, to decide the matter 'afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. During the hearing 'of case of Noor Ahmad, on remand, the petitioner also gave an application to be impleaded him as a party and although his application was dismissed but all the three parties were heard and the Deputy Administrator (R.P.) vide order dated 26-9-1982, while dismissing the petitioner's application for being impleaded as a party held that the plot which had been transferred to the respondent was No,BVIII-15-SA-6 and not B-VIII-9-S-29; that the said Noor Ahmad was transferee of Property No,B- VIII-15-S-4 (old number B-VIII-9-S-29) and ordered that the transfer documents be issued after correction. The Deputy Administrator, therefore, removed the confusion. The order dated 26-9-1982 was assailed by the petitioner through Revision Petition No,5 of 1983 before the Administrator on 12- 12-1982. Who vide order dated 21-4-1984 held that:-- ' "These are three separate properties out of which one was transferred to Muhammad Ayub petitioner, other to Noor Ahmad and the third property which was missing in the Excise and Taxation Record has now been correctly transferred to Abdul Rahim respondent No,3, under No,B- VIII-15-S-6."
4. The petitioner through Writ Petition No,19-R of 1989 assailed the transfer order dated 6-4-1981 passed by the Deputy Administrator, which as mentioned above, has already attained finality and he has also assailed the order dated 26-9-1982 passed by the Deputy Administrator (R.P.), whereby, as stated above, the confusion between the abovesaid Noor Ahmad and respondent was removed by renumbering the property allotted to respondent as Property No,6. The petitioner also assailed the order dated 21-4-1984 passed by the Administrator, through a revision petition, which was also dismissed. In the meanwhile, the respondent brought a suit for possession against the petitioner on 5-4-1983 with regard to the Property No,13-VIII15-S-6, which finally stood transferred to him. The suit was decreed on 7-3-1988. The Additional District. Judge, Jhelum, dismissed the petitioner's appeal on 23-1-1989; which order was assailed by the petitioner through C.R. No,94-D of 1989.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned High Court dismissed the Constitutional petition as well as the revision petition vide impugned judgment dated 30-10-2001.
Hence, these petitions.
6. Hafiz S.A. Rehman, learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contended that the learned High Court as well as the Settlement Authorities did not consider the case of the petitioners in its proper perspective; that the learned High Court was not justified in observing that the petitioners had not challenged the order dated 21-4-1984, which attained finality; that the petitioners challenged the same through Constitutional petition No,19-R of 1989; that the jurisdiction exercised by the Administrator or Deputy Administrator was not absolutely legal but was unwarranted in law, was arbitrary, fanciful, unjust and illegal.
7. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and very carefully scanned the record. The lower forums as well as the High Court very minutely examined the record available and decided the matter purely in accordance with law. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in any case, are not tenable. We do not find misreading or non- reading of material evidence, or jurisdictional error, or misconstruction of law in the impugned judgment, which is based on valid, sound and legal grounds. It would be advantageous to refer here paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:-- "5. The facts, detailed above show that these petitions have no merit. The order of transfer dated 6- 4-1981 passed by the Deputy Administrator attained finality when the petitioner's revision against the same was dismissed by the Administrator, as mentioned above, on 5-11-1981. The order dated 5-11-1981 attained finality as it was never assailed any further. The second round of litigation initiated on the basis of remand order passed by the Administrator on 22-6-1982 in the revision of a third party namely Noor Ahmad, was only to resolve the controversy between said Noor Ahmad and the respondent. Although the petitioner was not impleaded as a party in the remand, but he was heard once again and his assertion once again was thrashed out. It was found that the petitioner's assertion that the property transferred to respondent was not an independent property and had been illegally carved out from the property which stood transferred to the petitioner, was found to be incorrect and the controversy between Noor Ahmad and respondent and the confusion was removed on renumbering the respondent's property from Property No,29 to Property No,6. This order of the Deputy Administrator passed on 26-9-1982 was assailed by the petitioner in a revision and the same was also dismissed by the Administrator on merits on 21-4-1984 and after thorough probe, it was once again held that the property transferred to respondent has not been carved out from the property transferred to the petitioner. The writ petition assailing the transfer orders passed in favour of respondent has, therefore, no merit. Since, the transfer order passed in favour of respondent have attained finality and are also being upheld by this Court, therefore, the trial Court correctly decreed the respondent's suit for possession in his favour. The petitioner's revision petition, therefore, has also no merit."
' Furthermore, a question of law of public importance is not involved in these cases.
8. For the above facts and reasons, we are of the considered view that both the above mentioned petitions are without merit and substance, which are hereby dismissed and leave to appeal declined.