1976 PLP 335 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD GUL, J: This petition is from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 21‑3‑1975 dismissing writ petition moved by the petitioner herein. The dispute is about the transfer of evacuee plot bearing Khasra No. 463 situate, in the revenue estate of Kahuta Tehsil, District Rawalpindi. In the first instance it was transferred to Amir Muhammad, since deceased, husband of the petitioner Mst. Aisha Begum on the assumption that it measured 13 marlas only. Art appeal by Mst. Sosan Bibi, respondent 1 herein, against the transfer of the entire plot to Amir Muhammad succeeded and the case was remanded to the Assistant Settlement Commissioner for fresh determination. After the remand of the case it was discovered that Khasra No. 463 measured 1 kanal 1 marla and not 13 marlas only as originally assumed, and the Assistant Settlement Commissioner by order dated 1‑9‑1972 transferred marlas to Mst. Aisha Begum, Amir Muhammad having died in the meantime and an equivalent area to Mst. Sosan Bibi respondent 1 and the remainder 4 morlas to Mss. Ghulam Kuhra. On the basis of this order, respondent 1 was later issued on 9‑l0‑1972 P. T. D, wherein the area transferred to her was assigned a separate number viz, Khasra No. 463/2. Subsequent to the issuance of P. T. D. to respondent No. 1, the petitioner filed appeal before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner which was partially accepted on 21‑3‑1972 and the petitioner was transferred 13 marlas while the area transferred to respondent I was reduced to .8 marlas. Mst. Ghulam Kubra was excluded from the transfer all together. A revision filed by the petitioner against the above order of the D. S. C., failed: so also writ petition filed by her. A learned single Judge following the decision of this Court in Murid Hussain Shah Muhammad Yousaf Ali (1974SCMR8) has taken the view that P. T. D. having properly issued in favour of the respondent 1, the property covered by P. T. D., went out of the compensation pool and therefore ceased to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Settlement Authorities. In support of this petition, the petitioner's learned counsel submitted that the High Court was wrong in its view that P. T. D. having issued in favour of respondent 1, the dispute became beyond the jurisdiction of the Settlement Authorities. It was urged that the P. T. D. issued in favour of respondent No. 1 was subject to the incidence of appeal and revision and therefore it was within the competence of the Deputy Settlement Commis sioner and for that matter the Additional Settlement Commissioner to decide the appeal and revision on merits. It was rightly pointed out by the High Court that once a P. T. D. is issued in favour of a transferee that transfer can be set aside on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation only. There are no such allegations in the instant case and therefore the matter cannot be re‑opened by the Settlement Authorities. Even otherwise no injustice has been done for the petitioner is transferred an area equivalent to that initially transferred in her husband, The petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.