1970 PLP 51 (SCMR)

HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.‑The dispute in this case relates to a shop situated in Burewala. A portion of it was in possession of the respondent Muhammad Ashraf and the other portion was in the occupation of one Muhammad Tufail. Muhammad Ashraf applied for the transfer of the shop on a C S Form. The portion in his possession was transferred to him. He preferred an appeal to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner who allowed the appeal and transferred both portions as one unit to the said Muhammad Ashraf on the 24th of April 1960. At this stage the present petitioner, who was not in occupa tion of either of the two portions, complained to the Additional Settlement Commissioner to the effect that two shops had been illegally transferred to Muhammad Ashraf. The Additional Settlement Commissioner referred the matter to the Settlement Commissioner, Multan, with a recommendation that the shop, which was in occupation of the local Muhammad Tufail, should be taken away from Muhammad Ashraf. Against this order the petitioner and the said Muhammad Ashraf both filed revision petitions. In these revision petitions the Settlement Commissioner transferred the shop in occupation of Tufail to the petitioner. Muhammad Ashraf filed a writ petition in the High Court which was accepted and the order of the Settlement Commissioner was quashed, holding that the petitioner had no locus standi under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, to come in as an informant before the Settlement Authorities, particularly, since he was no party to the proceedings relating to the transfer of the property. The petitioner could not, therefore, be treated as an informant and given this property. The petitioner now seeks Special Leave to Appeal but we find no ground for interference. The premises have been treated as one shop by the Settlement Authorities and transferred to Ashraf who was certainly in occupation of a portion thereof and was a claimant. The other portion being in occupation of a local could not be transferred to the local. The transfer to Ashraf was, therefore, regular and not vitiated in any way. The petitioner had no business to come in and interfere. The procedure for coming in as an informant is not to be found under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. If he had any complaints to make he could have moved the Enforcement Authorities under the Press Note dated the 7th April 1960 (vide page 132 of the old Manual of Settlement Law and Procedure). He did not do this but tried to come in by a back door method. The High Court was, in the circumstances, in our opinion, right in quashing the order of the Additional Settlement Commis sioner who had illegally assumed jurisdiction in the matter. This petition is, accordingly, without any substance and is dismissed. Leave refused.