1986 PLP 2999 (MLD)

This petition is directed against the impugned order, dated 9‑5‑1981 passed by the respondent No.1 whereby he allowed the revision application filed by the respondent No.2 and declared the order, dated 5‑1‑1981 of Deputy Settlement Commissioner as without lawful authority. The facts giving rise to this petition are that House No.II‑A, 1529‑1551‑1550 Wali Para, Tando Adam, is a double storey house built on plot admeasuring 94 sq. yards and it comprises of one 'Utak' and one living room. It is the case of the petitioner that the entire one unit was allotted on 6‑4‑1949 to one Abdullah Khan, and soon thereafter the petitioner came in possession of upper floor (II‑A‑1550). According to the petitioner Abdullah left ground floor premises and surrendered possession to the petitioner who then accommodated one Mehar Ali in that portion. The petitioner filed C . H . Form for the full house and he being illiterate described on the C.H. Form as II‑A‑153, Water Para, Tando Adam. It is the case of the petitioner that his C . H . Form was approved after verification of possession and on 21‑11‑1959 Appendix‑I was issued and thereafter, P.T.D. for the same number was issued on 7‑4‑1982. Mehar Ali submitted N.C. H. Form for the ground floor premises II‑A‑1529. It is the case of the petitioner that Mehar Ali left the premises and the petitioner came in possession of the entire house. The adjacent house bearing No. D . S. No.II‑A‑1548‑49 was in occupation of the respondent No.2 who secured its transfer and P.T.D. was issued in his favour. House No.1529‑1551 remained available and it was put in auction on 9‑12‑1964 with reserve price of Rs.2,390 but no bid was offered and it was transferred through negotiation by D.S.C. to the respondent No.2 for Rs.600. It is the case of the petitioner that differences arose between parties on assignment of corresponding C.S. numbers to their houses. It is the case of the petitioner that his house stands on C.S. No.C‑50/2 and D.S.C. assigned the C.S. number to petitioner's house by order, dated 13‑2‑1980. The respondent challenged this order in Revision before the Settlement Commissioner which was allowed on 22‑3‑1980 and remanded to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner/ Authorised Officer for disposal. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner after hearing the parties and by their consent remanded the matter to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Nawabshah by his order, dated 7‑8‑1980. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner held that double‑storyed home possessed by Allah Din. The respondent filed Revision Application which was allowed by the impugned order. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order. It is an admitted position that P.T.D. was issued in favour of the respondent No.2 in respect of house D.S. No.II‑A 1548‑

49. It is an admitted position that the Deputy Commissioner (CC) remanded the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Nawabshah for ascertaining the actual corresponding city Survey Number of Custodian Nos.II‑A 1529/1551 and D.S. No.II‑A‑1550 on the site with the help of old Custodian staff. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Nawabshah by his order, dated 5‑1‑1981 held that Allah Din's house is constructed over D.S. No.II‑A‑1529/1530/1551, and it corresponds to city survey No.C/50/2. The transfer by negotiation to the applicant (respondent No.2) is not in accordance with the Settlement Laws and as such the applicant has no title in the property which was not available at the time of it transfer to the applicant in 1965. " The Settlement Commissioner rightly held that the Deputy Commissioner, Nawabshah has no jurisdiction to hold that the transfer by negotiation to the respondent No.2 is not in accordance with Settlement Laws. I am of the view that the respondent No.1 has rightly held that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner has no jurisdiction to cancel the Permanent Transfer in favour of the respondent No.2. I am of the view that after issuance of Permanent Transfer Deed in favour of the respondent No.2, the deletion of Rules 6 and 7 of the Permanent Transfer (House and Shops) Rules, 1961 and the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act of 1958, only remedy available to the petitioner would be to have adjudication by a Court of competent jurisdiction. The result is that Permanent Transfer Deed issued in favour of the respondent No.2 unless challenged in proper proceedings shall hold the field. In the result, the petition is dismissed and I find that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 does not militate against law. The petitioner may, however, seek legal remedy available to him under the law from a competent Court of law, if he so desires. In the circumstances of the case the parties will bear their own costs. The above are the reasons of short order, dated 22‑9‑1986. H. B. T. Petition dismissed.