1989 PLP 2037 (SCMR)

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑The main submission of Mr. K.MA. Samdani, learned counsel for the petitioner Muhammad Din in support of this review petition, is that the finding of this Court that it was not established that Muhammad Din aforesaid had, in fact, filed any N C H Form under Settlement Scheme No. 1 requires review in so far as it is based on the non‑reading of all the material on record. It is admitted that the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore, in his order dated 22‑3‑1968 had held that Muhammad Din did not file any N C H Form and further that this part of the order was not interfered with specifically in Writ Petition No. 687 of 1989 but the aforesaid finding could not be taken as binding against the petitioner as the decision of the writ petition was ultimately in favour of the petitioner. Furthermore, attention is drawn to the copy of the entry in the N C H Forms Reg1ster which shows that Muhammad Din had submitted an N C H Form which is entered as No. 983 on 16‑12‑1959 and herein reference to the property concerned is given as House 1st No. 17, Gowalmandi, Lahore. Accordingly, the submission is that the petitioner being an applicant for the property under Settlement Scheme No. I he was entitled to the transfer of the upper floor of the house in preference to the respondents who were applicants for the portions in their possession in the upper portion of the house only under Settlement Scheme No. VIII.

2. We observe and the learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the copy of the N C H form submitted by the petitioner is not traceable in the records. It is also admitted that the petitioner does not have any duplicate copy of the form which he was supposed to retain with him. In these circumstances, it is not possible to ascertain with any degree of exactitude as to what part of the property the petitioner was actually desirous of obtaining in transfer. It is also an admitted position that the property in question is a double storey building; one portion of the ground‑floor is occupied by the Industrial Concern i.e. Soap Factory (which was transferred to Atta Muhammad etc.) and the other portion of the ground‑floor transferred to Ch. Muhammad Shafi, a local occupant; that the petitioner himself is in occupation of only one room in the upper portion while all the other rooms of the same upper portion are occupied by the respondents and others. Thus, in the absence of the N C H Form or its copy being available, wherefrom it could have been discovered as to what specific part of the property' the petitioner was desirous of transfer, it could not be said that the rooms, not in his occupation, were not "available for transfer within the meaning of Settlement Scheme No. VIII, simply because the petitioner had submitted an N C H form under Settlement Scheme No.

1. It goes with out saying that unless it was shown by him affirmatively that he was an applicant for the said rooms also, no proceedings in respect of them under Settlement Scheme No. 1 can be held to have been "pending."

3. The very fact that the order of transfer in favour of the petitioner was passed for the first time in 1975, long after the respondents had submitted their forms for transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII shows that all the occupants were desirous of transfer. Now all the parties have been finally settled in the portions in their possession.

4. No ground for review of the impugned order passed by this Court has been made out. This petition is dismissed. A.A./M‑1077/S Review petition dismissed.