1982 PLP 977 (CLC)

MUSFITAQ HUSSAIN, J.‑This dispute arises out of the transfer of House No. P‑61, situated in Block No. 4, Gojra. The predecessor‑in‑interest of the appellants as well as that of the private respondents were occupants of this house. The former is said to have been an allottee while the latter ‑did not have any allotment in his favour. When the Settlement operations began, both of them applied .for the transfer of the property in dispute by filing CH forms as both of them happened to be claimants. Tae learned Deputy Commissioner transferred the entire house to the present appellants, but in appeal the Additional Settlement Commissioner divided the property into two and transferred a portion to each of the private respondents. The Settlement Commissioner affirmed the order of the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner. A writ petition was unsuccessfully filed by Mst. Kaniz Fatima, etc. which was dismissed by an order of a learned Judge in Chambers on 8‑3‑1966. Hence this appeal. We need not go into the details of the facts of this case because the appeal can be disposed of on ‑a very short point. We have been informed that Muhammad Boota, the predecessor‑in‑interest of the private respondents besides filing a CH form had also submitted an "E" form for participating in the earmarking process. We have asked learned counsel for the appellant if this "E" form was ever withdrawn and we have been informed that no such action was ever taken. The "E" form, therefore, stood for disposal before the Settlement authorities. The Supreme Court has in a long line of cases ending with Aziz‑ur‑Rehm.vi v. Habib Bano (:) held that :‑ "In these circumstances, there is no reason to depart from the law laid down by the Supreme Court in more than one case and the filing of "E" form amounts to the withdrawal of CH form if any already filed. The ratio of these decisions appears to be that the choice has to be made at the time of making the application in form "E" and the choice so made is irrevocable." The moment Muhammad Boota submitted an application in the "E" form he would, in accordance with the dictum of the Supreme Court, be deeme to have made an irrevocable crioice and to have withdrawn his CH form for the transfer of a part of the property in dispute. He had, therefore, no case for its transfer and the Settlement authority had no jurisdiction transfer any part of the property in dispute to him. This appeal is con't sequently accepted and the orders of the Settlement Authorities passed in favour of the private respondents or their predecessor‑in‑interest are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect with the result that the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner shall stand. The appellants shall also get their costs ffom the respondents. M. Y. H. Appeal allowed.