P L D 1965 (W (PLP)

SHAKIRULLAH JAN, J.‑This is a petition under Article 98 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan by Mst. Chuni Begum, daughter of Haji Shamsuddin, resident of 89‑A, Saddar Road, Peshawar Cantonment, a claiment displaced person, whose claim is verified to the extent of Rs. 1,02,

684. The disputed property named as Beg Hotel bearing No. 1065/1062‑A, is situate on Saddar Road, Peshawar Cantonment, which is an evacuee property and was named as Crown Hotel by its evacuee owners.

2. On his migration from Delhi to Pakistan, Haji Shamsuddin, father of the petitioner Mst. Chuni Begum, was given possession of the above‑mentioned property on the 27tH of September 1947, which was then lying open and vacant. On the 20th of October 11948, the said property was allotted to him. True copy of the allotment order is Annexure `A'. Subsequently, on the request of Haji Shamsuddin, the property in dispute was allotted by the Rehabilitation Authorities to the petitioner on the 28th of February 1953 and having taken over possession of the property, she furnished the same and started there an hotel under the style `Shams Hotel'. Copy of the allotment order in favour of the petitioner is Annexure `B'.

3. It is alleged that on the 7th of August 1954, without serving a show‑cause notice on the petitioner and without any order being passed by a competent authority cancelling her allotment, the premises along with the furniture and other articles belonging to the petitioner therein were sealed by the Rehabilitation Authorities and she was thus turned out illegally from the premises. The inventory regarding the articles prepared by the Rehabilitation Authorities is Annexure `C'. The petitioner was unable to seek any redress in spite of her repeated representation made to the Rehabilitation Authorities against the impugned illegal order.

4. Later, the possession of the premises in dispute along with the articles and the furniture was given by the Rehabilitation Authorities to one Daulat Beg, a local, who associated Shahzada Khan respondent with him and sublet the hotel to him under the guise of partnership. On the promulgation of Settlement Scheme No. 1, the petitioner submitted C. S. Fore for the transfer of the disputed property to her. Daulat Beg claiming to be a displaced person from Ambala also submitted N. C. S. Form with the result that the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, by his order dated the 17th of October 1959, transferred the property to Daulat Beg, vide Annexure `E'. The petitioner preferred an appeal in the Court of Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner Peshawar, who by his order dated the 14th of January 1960, accepted the appeal, set aside the order of the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and remanded the case for enquiry into the claim of Daulat Beg as to whether he was a displaced person or not and to decide the case afresh on merits, vide Annexure 'F'. Daulat Beg preferred a revision against the above mentioned order in the Court of Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Peshawar, who rejected it, by his order dated the 11th of February 1960, true copy of which is Annexure 'G'.

5. After remand, the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner; who held enquiry regarding the bona fides of the claim of the petitioner and Daulat Beg found that the latter was a local and was thus not entitled to the transfer of the shop in dispute, where as the former was allottee of the shop and so he ordered its transfer in her favour, vide Annexure 'H'. Consequently, a notice of transfer in the form of Appendix 'X' and a Provisional Transfer Order in respect of the shop in question were issued to the petitioner on the 22nd of April 1960 and 5th of May 1960, respectively. Accordingly, she adjusted transfer prices of the property from the amount of the deferred payment available to her in lieu of her claim. True copies of the Appendix and Transfer order are Annexures 'I' and 'J', respectively.

6. Daulat Beg went on appeal against the order of the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner to the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Peshawar and D. I. Khan Divisions (respondent No. 3), who, by his order dated the 18th of June 1960, accepted the appeal, set aside the order of the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner on the ground, that the petitioner was not in physical possession of the property. He, however, held that Daulat Beg, being a local, was otherwise not entitled to its transfer and so he ordered the disputed property to be sold by auction. Certified copy of this order is Annexure 'K'. The petitioner and Daulat Beg preferred revision petitions against the order of the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (respondent No. 3) to the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (respondent No. 2), who, by his order dated the 19th of July 1960, upheld the order of respondent No. 3 and dismissed the revision petition, vide Annexure 'M'.

7. It was on the 18th of August 1960, that Shahzada Khan to whom the property is alleged to have been sublet by Daulat Beg, applied for the first time to the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner for the transfer of the shop on the ground, that he, being in possession of the property, had converted it into an hotel after the 14th of August 1947. The Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, by his order dated the 25th of October 1960, accepted the application and transferred the property in dispute to him, vide Annexure 'N'. The aggrieved petitioners preferred a revision petition against the orders of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Pakistan, Lahore, which was heard by Malik Fateh Khan, Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner with the delegated powers of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, who, by his order dated the 21st of June 1961 (Annexure 'Q') made the following queries from the Deputy Settlement ,and Rehabilitation Commis sioner, Peshawar:‑ (1) Whether the shop in dispute was transferred to Shahzada Khan in contravention of the order of the Settlement Commissioner, Peshawar Division, directing the sale thereof. (2) Whether the allotment made in favour of Mst. Chuni Begum was ever cancelled. (3) Whether valuable furniture of the lady was still lying locked up in the main hall of the building. He directed the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner to furnish report on the above mentioned points at Lahore by the 7th of July 1961. The Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner furnished the requisite information and on receipt of the same, Malik Fateh Khan. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner with the powers of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Pakistan, Lahore, by his order dated the 23rd of September 1961, rejected the revision petition of Mst. Chuni Begum holding:‑ "I find that the petitioner had ceased to own any right in this property. They terminated it 1954, when the premises were sealed and fresh allotment was made to Daulat Beg. On this ground only, her petition is to be dismissed. As 'regards the transfer made to Shahzada Khan. I will certainly uphold it inasmuch as even a local, he was entitled to its transfer,' as he had converted the premises into an hotel". Copies of the above‑mentioned orders are Annexures 'P' and 'Q', respectively.

8. The petitioner preferred a review petition against the above order dated the 23rd of September 1961 to the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Pakistan, which was heard and decided by Malik Muhammad Akram Khan, Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner with the delegated powers of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, who, by his order dated the 26th of February 1964, while holding the disputed property to be an hotel from the time of its evacuee owners described it to have fallen within the category of a shop. He further held Shahzada Khan in‑eligible for the transfer of the shop and quashed the transfer order passed in his favour. He also held that the petitioner was also not entitled to its transfer with tine result that he upheld the order of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner regarding the sale of the shop.

9. The petitioner attacks the orders of the Settlement Authorities on the following grounds:‑ (1) That the orders of respondent No. 1 dated the 23rd of September 1961 and 26th of February 1964, of respondent No. 2 dated the 19th of July 1960 and of respondent No. 3, dated the 18th of .Inn‑ 1960, are illegal, void and ultra vires inasmuch as these orders deny the transfer of the property to her and tantamount to refusal in exercise of the jurisdiction on the part of the said respondents. (2) That the allotment of the premises in favour of the petitioner having never been legally cancelled, her forcible eviction from it has no lawful effect upon her entitlement regarding its transfer to her and so she is in legal possession of the property and has statutory right of its transfer vested in her. (3) That the Settlement Authorities ignored the definition of `possession' applicable to the case of the petitioner. (4) That there was no valid order passed by a competent authority cancelling the allotment of the petitioner and nor she was served with a show‑cause notice before her ejectment from the suit property and, as such, the proceedings relating to her forcible dispossession and subsequent allotment of the property to Daulat Beg are illegal, null and void without jurisdiction and the petitioner alone could be deemed to be in possession of the property in dispute and hence, she is entitled to its transfer.

10. The orders of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 upsetting the order of respondent No. 4 were attacked on the ground, that they had no jurisdiction to set aside the above‑mentioned order. The petitioner, therefore, prayed that the orders of respondents Nos. 1 to 3, dated the 23rd of September 1961, 26th of February 1964, 19th of July 1960 and 18th of June 1960, respectively (marked `Q', `S', `M' and `K') be quashed to the extent, which relate to the disposal of the property in question by auction and her disentitlement to its transfer and the order of respondent No. 4, dated the 12th of March 1960 (Annexure `H') pertaining to the transfer of the property in dispute to her be restored.

11. On the 3rd of August 1964, the application preferred by Shahzada Khan praying to be impleaded as respondent in this case was allowed subject to all just exceptions by order of a learned Judge of this Court. Shahzada Khan in his written statement filed in this Court raised a preliminary objection urging that the petitioner was not competent to bring the petition under Article 98 of the Constitution, as she was not an aggrieved person and that respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to hear the review petition filed by the petitioner on the ground, that the petitioner had sought the review of the order dated the 23rd of September 1961, passed by Malik Fateh Khan, Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner in exercise of the revisional powers under section 20 (2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, as delegated by the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner under section 31 of the Act. He was, however, not delegated the powers to review the order passed by another delegatee, because notification dated the 21st/23rd of December 1963, as amended by subsequent notification dated the 2nd of January 1964, was not applicable. It was contended that even section 9 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, contemplates one Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and that a perusal of the provisions of section 9 read with section 21 of the Act would show that the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner can review his own order or the order of his predecessor, but these provisions do not authorise a delegatee to review the order passed by another delegatee, because a delegatee whose order is to be reviewed cannot be termed as `predecessor' in law. It was further contended that the petitioner had no locus standi, to file a review petition and contest the transfer in favour of the answering respondent and ask for the transfer of the property in her favour, as she had not applied for its transfer in accordance with the law. It was also contended that she had failed to file application for the transfer of the property within the prescribed period and had filed C. H. Form, which had been altered by inter polation of the letters `C. S.' This form, which was submitted by the petitioner, was entertained by order of the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, which order was challenged by the answering respondent on the ground, that the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner was not competent to entertain such application, as Scheme No. 1 did not empower him to do so. The review application preferred by the petitioner on the 16th of October 1961, was barred by time and no application for condonation of the limitation was filed with the revision petition and so it was not entertainable. Lastly, it was contended that the petitioner, not being in possession of the shop within the meaning of section 2 (6) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, was neither an aggrieved person and nor she was entitled to claim its transfer and that the shop having been converted into an hotel by him (Shahzada Khan) in partnership with Daulat Beg, it was rightly transferred to him by the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Com missioner.

12. On merits, the answering respondent Shahzada Khan denied that the property bearing No. 1062‑A was also the subject matter of the dispute, because it, being a separate portion, was separately allotted and was never allotted to the petitioner. He also denied that the property in dispute was named as `Crown Hotel' by its evacuee owners, as it was a shop and was allotted as such on the basis of the allotment orders (copies Annexures `A' and 'B'). He further urged that after the allotment, the petitioner had unauthorizedly sublet the shop to other person and reports were made to the Rehabilitation Authorities in this respect and a show‑cause notice was issued to the petitioner, which was followed by an ejectment order dated the 8th of July 1954 and another ejectment order dated the 28th of July 1954 was served upon Usman son and attorney of the petitioner on the 7th of August 1954. (Copy of ejectment order dated the 28th of July 1954 together with the endorsement made by Usman dated the 7th of August 1954 is Annexure `R‑5'. The shop was then allotted to Daulat Beg, vide order dated the 16th of August 1954. On the 14th of September 1954, a portion of the property bearing No. 1062‑A, was also allotted to Daulat Beg, which was in possession of one Zafar Iqbal, and Daulat Beg was put in possession of the shop and so the premises were in possession of one Muhammad Ashraf and Zafar Iqbal. After the ejectment order, the petitioner and her agent did not prefer an appeal and the order of the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner has thus become final. After the allotment of the shop to Daulat Beg, the answering respondent joined him as partner. He denied that the shop was sublet to him by Daulat Beg.

13. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 (Settlement Department) filed written statement in this Court on the 22nd of February 1965, at the time when the case was partly heard. They also denied the petitioner's right to the property in dispute.

14. Learned counsel for the Department during the course of arguments had referred to certain orders and documents,) copies of which were filed along with the written statement.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the written statement and the copies of the documents filed by the standing counsel for the Department during the course of his arguments A on the 22nd of February 1965, may not be admitted.

15. There is some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, because the written statement was filed by the counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 4 in violation of Rule 6, Part II of the Writ Petition Rules. Furthermore, copies of certain documents filed with the written statement also cannot be admitted, because learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 4 B admitted that these documents were copies of copies and had no been copied from the original and, therefore, a copy of a copy cannot be admitted as a true copy of its original and fort the above reasons, we exclude the written statement and the documents filed along with it from our consideration.

16. The main point involved in this writ petition is that since there is no order under which the allotment of Mst. Chuni Begum had been cancelled and the order, if any, cancelling her allotment and allotting the disputed property to Daulat Beg and Shahzada Khan had been passed at her back, it has no legal force and does not affect tier right and interest in law and, as such she should be considered to be in legal possession of the property. The order of the Settlement Authorities with regard to her forcible dispossession from the premises in dispute was an act without legal authority and does not affect her right and interest in the property. In law, she continues to be in possession of the property and the person, who was given possession is deemed to be in possession under her.

17. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Pakistan Rehabilitation Ordinance XIX of 1948 (appearing at page 156 of the Evacuee and Rehabilitation Laws, 1957) read with rule 6 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Rules, 1951 (appearing at page 208 of the same book). Section 19 of the above‑mentioned Ordinance has empowered the Central Government to frame rules, and, consequently, by Notification No. 15 (6)/50. B. J., the Pakistan Rehabilitation Rules, 1951, came into force on the 3rd of February 1951. Rule 6 of these Rules appearing at page 208 lays down :‑ "Summary ejectment.‑The procedure for summary ejectment under clause (b) of subsection (2) of section 8 shall be as follows:‑ (a) The Rehabilitation Authority shall in the first instance issue a notice to the unauthorised person to show cause, within a period which shall not be less than 7 days why he should not be ejected. (b) After consideration of the representation, if any, made by or on behalf of the unauthorised person and after taking such evidence as he may consider necessary; the Rehabilitation Authority may make an order under clause (b) of subsection (2) of section 8 which shall be served in the manner prescribed in Rule 8. (c) If the unauthorized person fails to deliver possession of the property to the Rehabilitation Authority within a period of 7 days of the service of the order of ejectment under clause (b) of this Rule or unless within the same period an order is received from the appellate authority staying the ejectment, the Rehabilitation Authority shall cause a case under section 14 of the Ordinance to be registered at the police station of the area within which the property is situated and shall further direct the police to eject the unauthorised person with the use of such force as may be necessary."

18. Under Rule 6 of the above‑mentioned Rules, the Rehabilitation Authorities are bound to give a show‑cause notice even in summary proceedings for the ejectment of an unauthorized person, and so it follows that a show‑cause notice must be given, which is to be followed by a regular hearing. In a case reported as Badrul Jalil, Rent Controller, Hyderabad and Nusrat Hussain, D. R. C. and Collector, Hyderabad v. Wali Muhammad (P L D 1956 S C (Pak.) 259) their Lordships observed:‑ "In a case in which it is not suggested that the person summarily ejected from evacuee property under section 8 (2) (b) of Pakistan Rehabilitation Ordinance (XIX of 1948), had broken any of the conditions of allotment or was otherwise an unsuitable person, and the ejectment was supposed to have been ordered only on the ground of such person being in unauthorized possession of evacuee property, a show‑cause notice under Rule 6 of Pakistan Rehabilitation Rules, 1951 is necessary." In the result, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that where there was no notice, ejectment was illegal and so the order of the High Court issuing a writ of mandamus directing restoration of possession was upheld.

19. In Muhammad Ishaq and another v. Dr. Saiduddin Swaleh and another (P L D 1960 Kar. 48), Qadeeruddin, J. at page 54, while summing up the discussion observed‑‑ "There is no provision in the Evacuee and Rehabilitation Laws authorising the cancellation of a subsisting allotment by making a new allotment. Moreover, an allottee cannot be ejected except when he fails to observe the terms and conditions of the allotment made to him or he is found in the opinion of the Rehabilitation Authority to be an unsuitable person to hold the property allotted to him. If during the subsistence of one allotment another allotment is issued then it is merely provisional and must remain floating in the air to settle down in the place of the former allotment when the former allottee is ejected. Its concurrent existence would not invalidate the former allotment order and therefore the former allottees need not have appealed against the second allotment order."

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted‑ that on the basis of a void order, Mst. Chuni Begum was ejected and, therefore, the subsequent orders passed by the Rehabilitation Authorities allotting the property to the respondent are without legal force. In support of this contention, he relied upon Yusaf Ali v. Muhammad Aslam Zia and others (P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 104). Their Lordships at page 117 made the following observations:‑ "And if on the basis of a void order subsequent orders have been passed either by the same authority or by other Authorities, the whole series of such orders, together with the superstructure of rights and obligations built upon them, must, unless some statute or principle of law recognizing as legal the changed position of the parties is in operation, fall to the ground because such orders have as little legal foundation as the void order on which they are founded. On this view the orders made by the Rehabilitation Board and the Central Government refusing to eject the respondents which were based on that part of the Deputy Custodian's order which we have held to be in excess of his jurisdiction were void and not final within the meaning of section 13‑B of the Rehabilitation Ordinance, and it was the Rehabilitation Commissioner's order directing ejectment of the respondents that became final in law."

20. Learned counsel for the Department contended that there is material on the record to show that a show‑cause notice was issued to the petitioner and that during the course of an enquiry regarding the allegations that the petitioner had sublet the shop in question, a show‑cause notice dated the 2nd of July 1954 was served on her. In those proceedings, the statement of Muhammad Ashraf was also recorded, who admitted that he was doing furniture business in the said shop.

21. In order to find out, as to whether a show‑cause notice was served or not on the petitioner before her ejectment from the premises in dispute was ordered, we examined, Noor Akbar, Upper Division Clerk, Settlement Department, as a Court witness. He produced the original file of the Department containing office copies of the show‑cause notice at pages 81 and 96 and the ejectment order at pages 82 and 94, pertaining to the premises in dispute. It may be mentioned that copies of the show‑cause notice at pages 81 and 96 of the file do not show that a notice was served on the petitioner. Noor Akbar C. W., while narrating the procedure observed in sending show‑cause notices for ejectment or other notices, deposed that normally three copies of a notice are prepared; one is retained in the office, the second is sent to the occupant of the premises and the third is sent to the Ward Officer. In the case of occupants of the premises at Peshawar Cantonment, notice is first entered in the peon book and then it is served on the occupant of the premises through a peon. He further deposed that the peon book in which notices are supposed to have been entered by the Department and issued to the occupants under Rule 8 of the Rehabilitation Rules are not available. On being questioned by the Court that in case, a person disputed that he had not received the summons, how the Department could prove that the notice was served and that the allegation of the person was wrong, the witness deposed that the only evidence in such a case would be the peon book, but that too was not available in which signatures and thumb‑impressions are taken in token of having received the notice. He concluded in examination‑in‑chief:‑ "From the present record pertaining to this case, the Department cannot prove whether a show‑cause notice issued to the petitioner was served on her or not" The statement of Usman son and attorney of Mst. Chuni Begum was recorded on the 7th of August 1954, which is on the back of the ejectment order at page 94 of file No. 452 (DRC) pertaining to the premises No. 1065, Saddar Road, Shams Hotel, which is to the following effect:‑ "It is stated that no show‑cause notice or ejectment order was received. Today, Ward Officer reached and ordered to vacate the shop. This shop was maintaining the allottee, i. e., Mst. Chuni Begum and her issues. Since the allotment was made and always resulted in ejectment order. Now the property of the allottee has also been sealed, shop was not rented out, but presumed so by the officers of the Department. Passengers are also staying in the hotel."

22. The statement of Usman attorney of the petitioner finds support from the statement of Noor Akbar C. W. to the effect, that no show‑cause notice was served on the petitioner. These facts, taken into consideration, would show that the Rehabilitation Authorities failed to issue a show‑cause notice to the petitioner, as contemplated by Rule 6 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Rules, 1951 and so, in these circumstances, the petitioner who was wrongly ejected from the premises is still deemed to be in its legal possession. At page 244 of the Manual of Settlement Law and Procedure, `possession' has been defined as under:‑ "Possession means possession obtained in pursuance of an order passed on or before the 20th day of December 1958 by a Rehabilitation Authority or a Custodian or any other officer authorised or permitted by the Central or Provincial Government." The petitioner had obtained possession of the property in dispute on the basis of an allotment order, which was not validly cancelled before allotting the property to the respondents.

23. Learned counsel for Shahzada Khan respondent contended that there is a distinction between the statutory provision requiring a show‑cause notice and the notice which should be issued in pursuance of the principles of natural justice. The distinction is that in the first category, all proceedings are null and void rendering the orders void, when no show‑cause notice is given in cases, where a notice is required by an Act or Rule. In the second category, all cases, namely, where a notice is to be issued in pursuance of the principles of natural justice, the omission to issue notice renders subsequent proceedings voidable and it is for the occupant of a house to show that he was prejudiced. He further urged that if a person was not heard by the original Court, but is heard by the appellate Court, then the defect is cured. In support of this contention, he relied upon the decision of Full Bench case reported in Muhammad Ishaq and another v. Dr. Saiduddin Swaleh and another (P L D 1959 Kar. 669). In this case, their Lordships of the Karachi seat in a Division Bench formulated the following question for reference to the Full Bench:‑ "Whether an order of ejectment passed against a person in possession of evacuee property should be set aside as void on the ground that it was passed without an opportunity to show‑cause although the party was heard by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities." In the Full Bench judgment, their Lordships B. Z. Kaikaus and Wahiduddin Ahmed, JJ., held: "It will have to be determined in each case whether the principle of natural justice has been sufficiently complied with on account of an opportunity of hearing before an appellate or revisional authority. The fact that the original order was passed without notice did not necessarily mean that the order was to be set aside. It was not possible to lay down any general rule. One will have to consider the proceedings as a whole. The question to be decided would be whether any prejudice had been caused by the fact that the party was not heard by the authority that passed the original order." On receipt of the above‑mentioned answer from the Full Bench, the Division Bench of the Karachi seat composed of their Lordships G. B. Constantine and Qadeeruddin Ahmad, JJ., in the same case reported in P L D 1960 Kar. 48 observed:‑ "Where opportunity of a hearing afforded to party in appeal and revision was adequate, there could be no grievance on the part of such party that he was not fully heard in Court of first instance which carried out an order of ejectment from allotted evacuee property without serving the party with a notice. There was no violation of any principle of natural justice."

24. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for Shahzada Khan respondent are distinguishable, because in the instant case, the Rehabilitation Department failed to give show‑cause notice in violation of Rule 6 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Rules, 1951, and so the proceedings and the ejectment of the petitioner from the premises are void, as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Badrul Jalil, Rent Controller, Hyderabad and Nusrat Hussain, D. R. C. and Collector, Hyderabad v. Wali Muhammad, referred to earlier in this judgment. Learned counsel appearing for the Department frankly admitted that there is no specific order of cancellation of the allotment in favour of Mst. Chuni Begum, which fact further lands support to the petitioner's contention that all the proceedings taken by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Depart ment were void.

25. At page 163 of the Manual of Settlement Law and Procedure, there is a press note dated the 9th of September 1960, reproducing the order issued by the Central Government in the Ministry of Rehabilitation and Works published in the Gazette of Pakistan Extraordinary on the 11th of August 1960, which is as under:‑ "No. F. 3 (3)/60‑SI.‑In exercise of the powers conferred by the second proviso to clause (b) of section 2 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 (XXVIII of 1958) the Central Government is pleased to order that the allottees of a house or a shop for whose benefit ejectment proceedings have been ordered by a Court or a Rehabilitation Authority and who, through no fault or negligence of their own, have so far been unable to obtain physical possession of the house or the shop in question shall be deemed to be in possession thereof for the purpose of the said Act." By another Notification No. F. 3 (3)/60‑SI, published on the 12th of April 1962, the following proviso was added to clause (6) of section 2 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, which is as under:‑ "Provided that any such allottee of a house or shop situated within the limits of a cantonment shall be deemed to be in possession thereof for the purpose aforesaid even if ejectment proceedings have not been so far ordered for his benefit." Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner who was allotted the premises in dispute was wrongly dispossessed inasmuch as no show‑cause notice was served . on her and so she is deemed to be in legal possession of the property and is, therefore, entitled to its transfer by virtue of the notification cited above, as her allotment was not cancelled. The record shows that the petitioner had filed C. S. Form for the transfer of the premises in dispute on the 14th of January 1960 and the last date for filing C. S. Form was the 10th of November 1960, but the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities failed to decide as to whether she was entitled to the transfer of the disputed property or not.

26. Malik Fateh Khan, Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, with the delegated powers of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, by his order dated the 21st of June 1961 (Annexure `C') passed on revision brought by Mst. Chuni Begum, made the following queries from the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner :‑ (1) Whether the shop in dispute was transferred to Shahzada Khan in contravention of the order of the Settlement Commissioner, Peshawar Division, directing the same thereof? (2) Whether the allotment in favour of Mst. Chuni Begum was ever cancelled? He further directed him to report as to whether the valuable furniture of the lady (Mst. Chuni Begum) was still lying locked up in the main hall of the building. The Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner submitted his report (copy Annexure `P') stating that the shop in dispute was ordered to be auctioned by the order of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, dated the 19th of July 1960, but it was later on transferred to Shahzada Khan by the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, by his order dated the 25th of October 1960. The disputed shop was subsequently allotted to Daulat Beg by the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, by his order of September 1954 and it was presumed that the allotment of the previous allottee Mst. Chuni Begum made, vide DRC Peshawar No. 2034‑35/452, dated the 28th of February 1953, would have been cancelled. He observed: "The record, however, does not contain any such order of cancellation". In para. (c) of the report, he stated :‑ "There is no furniture which is lying locked up in the main hall of the building as the whole premises is being used as an hotel by its present occupant Shahzada. It is, however, reported that at the time of taking possession of the shop from Mst. Chuni Begum, some furniture which included 7 marble topped tables, ceiling fans, almirahs etc. was left by her. The ownership of these articles is however disputed, as the inventory prepared at the time of first allotment of this shop shows that the evacuee owner had himself left all such articles in the premises." After receiving the above‑mentioned report, Malik Fateh Khan, Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner with the powers of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner by his order dated the 23rd of September 1961, held that the petitioner Mst. Chuni Begum had ceased to own any right in the property in dispute, which terminated in 1954, when the premises were sealed and fresh allotment was made to Daulat Beg, and on this ground the petition was dismissed. He further upheld the transfer made in favour of Shahzada Khan observing that even as a local, he was entitled to the transfer of the property, because he had converted it into an hotel.

27. There is no material on the record to show that it was Shahzada Khan, who had converted the premises from a shop into hotel. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the shop in question was not converted into an hotel by the answering respondent Shahzada Khan, but it had been used as an hotel by its evacuee owners. In support of this contention, he referred to the allotment order (Annexure `A'), which shows that possession of the Crown Hotel (1064) 1065 (open) had been handed over to Haji Shamsuddin Delhi Wala on the 27th of September 1947. Annexure `C' shows that possession of the premises named as `Shams Hotel' was taken over on the 7th of August 1954 and the inventory relating to the articles found therein was prepared. Serial No. 5 of Annexure `C' shows that there were two ceiling fans D. C. Complete. Now a reference to the allotment order (Annexure `A') in favour of Haji Shamsuddin Delhi Wala would show that entry in the column relating to the number of fans is nil and so it is obvious that after allotment of the Crown Hotel in favour of Haji Shamsuddin Delhi Wala, he had furnished it and named it as `Shams Hotel' and installed fans and other furniture, as mentioned in Annexure `C' and, therefore, there is no basis for the order dated the 23rd of September 1961, that Shahzada Khan even as a local was entitled to the transfer of the premises, as he had converted it into an hotel.

28. Attacking the order dated the 26th of February 1962, passed by Malik Muhammad Akram Khan, Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner with the powers of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, who on review, had set aside the order dated the 23rd of September 1961 of Malik Fateh Khan, Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner with the powers of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and had upheld the order dated the 19th of July 1960 of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, who had directed that the hotel should be sold by auction, learned counsel for Shahzada Khan respondent contended that respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to hear the review petition filed by Mst. Chuni Begum, on the ground that she had sought the review of the order dated the 23rd of September 1961, passed by Malik Fateh Khan, Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner in exercise of the revisional powers under section 20 (2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, as delegated by the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner under section 31 of the Act. He was, however, not delegated the powers to review the orders passed by another delegatee, as Notification dated the 21st/23rd of December 1963 as amended by subsequent Notification dated the 2nd of January 1964, was not applicable. In the opinion of the learned counsel for the respondent, the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner could review his own order on the order of his predecessor, but the provisions of law did not authorize him to review the order passed by another delegatee, because a delegatee whose order is to be reviewed cannot be termed as `predecessor'.

29. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mst. Chuni Begum contended that by Notification No. 8959‑Adm. Reh/63, dated the 21st/23rd of December 1963, as amended by subsequent Notification No. 3 (SC/‑3‑I‑AD‑Reh, dated the 2nd of January 1964, clarifying that in the previous Notification "Ordinance XIII of 1962" be read instead of "Ordinance 13 of 1963", Malik Muhammad Akram Khan was delegated the review powers of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner under section 21 (1) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, in respect of cases as are covered by the above‑mentioned Ordinance, and thus he had the powers to review the order of Malik Fateh Khan; learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Mst. Zainab Khatoon v. Mian Ghulam Shabbir and Mst. Kaneez Fatima (P L D 1965 S C 55). At page 61 it was observed:‑ "The argument ab inconvenient is raised, however, and it is contended that this view would invest the order of the delegate with finality, which perhaps would not be in accord with the intention of the legislative authority. It is said that an order passed by a delegatee of revisional powers under subsection (2) of section 20 of the Act, not being reviewable by him, would also not be amenable to review by the Chief Settlement Commissioner himself. That may be so, but the remedy lay in the Chief Settlement Commissioner giving power of review of his own as a delegate, to the Settlement Rehabilitation Commissioners along with the revisional powers mentioned. The suggestion was made that such a step was not open to the Chief Settlement Commissioner as the Act gave no power of review of a delegate's order, to the Chief Settlement Commissioner and he would, therefore, be not in a position to confer power on a delegate to review the latter's own order. I think the supposed difficulty would vanish if we consider that the power so confer would be that of the Chief Settlement Com missioner himself to review his own order. That was an express power vested in him under section 21 of the Act and could be delegated to a subordinate officer by him in exercise of his powers under subsection (2) of section 31."

30. From the perusal of Notification No. 8959‑Admn‑Reh/63, dated the 21st/23rd of December 1963, as amended by subsequent Notification No. 3 (S C)‑3‑I‑A D‑Reh., dated the 2nd of Januar 1964, and the authority cited above, it is clear that Malik Muhammad Akram Khan was delegated the powers of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner under section 21(1) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. 1958, in respect of cases, which are covered by the above! mentioned Notification and thus he had the powers to review the order of Malik Fateh Khan.

31. As a result of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the allotment order passed in favour of Mst. Chuni Begum has not been cancelled. She is deemed to be in possession of the disputed property and is entitled to its transfer. We, therefore, quash the orders dated the 23rd of September 1961, 26th of February 1964, 19th of July 1960 and 18th of June 1960 of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and restore the order dated the 12th of March 1960 of respondent No. 4 (Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner) transferring the property to her and accept this petition with costs. S. Q. Petition accepted.