1973 PLP 424 (SCMR)

The dispute relates to property No. P‑238, Block '8', Ward No. 10, Lyallpur. The case of the petitioners is that on the 24th February 1961 they entered into an agreement of association between themselves whereby it was agreed that 1/7th of the property would be transferred to the petitioner No. 1 and '1/8th to petitioner No.

2. The agreement was accepted by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the property was accordingly transferred to them and P. T. O. was issued to them. Rana Wazir Ali, the predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents Nos. 3 to 10, challenged this order of transfer on an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner on the ground that petitioner No. 1 had earlier on the 19th December 1960 entered into an agreement of association with liana Wazir Ali and one Wali Mohammad in respect of a portion of the property. Thereafter Rana Wazir Ali and Wali Mohammad also submitted an application before the Additional AV. Settlement Commissioner and stated therein that in spite of the fact that the atoresaid agreement dated the 19th December 1960 had been accepted the property was transferred to the petitioners on the basis of their agreement of association dated the 25th April 1961. This application was accepted and the Additional Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 10th June 1961 rejected the agreement of association dated the 25th April 1961. The petitioners claimed that this order was passed without notice to the petitioners, who had already been issued the requisite P. T. O. in respect of the property. The aforesaid appeal of Rana Wazir Ali came up for hearing on the 17th October 1962, but it was withdrawn on the ground that the appeal had become infructuous as the necessary relief had already been obtained. The petitioners claimed that as no notice was given to them they did not know about the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated the 10th June 1961. They challenged this order in revision but it was rejected on the 28th February 1967. They accordingly approached the High Court on a constitution petition and challenged the various orders passed against them. The petitioners contended that the order of transfer made in their favour by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, on the 24th February 1967 could only have been set _ aside on appeal and not in a miscellaneous application. They also contended that the impugned order dated the 10th June 1961 was passed without notice to them and after the property had already vested in them. Furthermore, that all proceedings subsequent to the order dated the 10th June 1961 were also illegal. The High Court accepted their contentions on the ground that the impugned orders were passed at a time when the validity of both the agreements of association was pending consideration. The High Court further held that upon the withdrawal of the said appeal the Additional Settlement Commissioner ceased to have jurisdiction and he could not, therefore, direct the amendment in the relevant papers in accordance. with the first agreement of association dated the 18th December 1960, inas much as this has amounted to deciding the appeal in favour of the appellants even though the appeal had been withdrawn. The High Court was of the opinion that it was necessary for the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to examine the parties concerned and confront them with the averments made in the agreements of association and to find out as to which of them was acted upon. This procedure not having been followed the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was not competent to accept the agreement dated the 24th February 1961 Court also held that the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner not having considered this aspect of the question their orders were vitiated. In our opinion the High Court was perfectly within its jurisdiction to hold as it did. None of the parties is affected by such order. The case will now be heard afresh by the Settlement Commissioner. The petitioners have failed to place before us any point of law of public importance. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.