1982 PLP 798 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 7th July, 1980. DORAB PATEL J.‑The dispute in this petition for leave relates to a plot of land on Mission Road, Lahore, which measures about ten marlas. As the petitioner had occupied and built a structure on a very small plot of this plot, she had applied for it under Settlement Scheme No. IV in June, 1959. However, although her application was not disposed of, the plot was put up for auction by the Settlement Department and was auctioned on 15‑7‑1961 in favour of the second respondent. Therefore, she challenged the order for the auction of this plot but her claim was rejected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 15‑2‑1962 and the auction in the second respondent's favour was confirmed by the same order. The petitioner, therefore, filed a revision before the Settlement Commissioner which was dismissed on 4‑2‑1963. She, therefore, challenged the impugned orders in a writ petition in the Lahore Seat of the West Pakistan High Court, but as her writ petition was dismissed in limine, in 1963, she filed a petition for leave in this Court. Leave was granted and her appeal was allowed on terms by this Court by its judgment dated 4‑6‑1965. The direction given by this Court in Mst. Mahmooda Tehsin v. Ejaz Hussain Shah PLD1965SC618 reads: ‑ "(The petitioner) admits that she is not in possession of that part of the plot on which she has not built. She is only in possession of the portion built upon Paragraph 13 was not intended to entitle a person to a transfer of land which is not in his possession ...... The right (of the petitioner) will be confined to the area in her possession subject of course to this that any necessary rights for a passage or other easement which are essential to the enjoyment of the property which is to be transferred to the appellant will also be granted to her by the Settlement authorities." In accordance with this Court's direction the Deputy Settlement Com. missioner re‑examined the claim of the petitioner, but the second respondent submitted that he was a necessary party to the case, because, in any event the petitioner was not entitled to the whole of the plot which had been auctioned to him. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner dismissed the second respondent's application because he was of the view that the second respon dent bad no locus standing to participate in the case. The second respondent challenged the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order in an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 20‑6‑1966. Therefore, the second respondent filed a revision against this order and the revision was allowed by the Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 19‑9‑1966. Although this order merely permitted the second respondent to be impleaded in the proceedings, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the Lahore Seat of the West Pakistan High Court. It is not surprising that this writ petition was dismissed in limine. The petitioner then filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the dismissal of her writ petition, but as this appeal was dismissed, on 16‑4‑1980 by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, she has filed this petition for leave. The question whether the second respondent was a necessary or proper party was m the discretion of the Settlement authorities and the Settlement Commissioner was entitled in the exercise of his discretion to set aside the orders of his subordinates even if he was of the view that the second respondent was a proper party. Now, as according to the judgment of this Court, which had become final, the petitioner was entitled only to a portion of the plot in dispute, it cannot reasonably be contended that the Settlement Commissioner had acted illegally or perversely in allowing the second respondent to be impleaded in the case before him. Therefore, the High Court would no have been justified in its limited constitutional jurisdiction in interfering wit the Settlement Commissioner's order. The petition is without merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.