P L D 1964 (W (PLP)

WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.

‑This Letters Patent Appeal is from the judgment of Constantine, J. in Writ Petition No. 367 of 1961, dated 13th February 1962. By this judgment the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.

2. The material facts for the disposal of this appeal may be shortly stated. The dispute between the parties is in respect of Bungalow No. 926, Clayton Road, Karachi, which consists of two floors. The appellant is in possession of the first floor from 1947. Respondent No. 4 occupied the ground floor of this property in 1956. In June 1959, the appellant applied for the transfer of the bungalow in question on C. H. Form which was transferred to him by an order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 17th November 1959. Respondent No. 4's N. C. H. Form in respect of the ground floor was rejected by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner by order dated 10th December 1959. Consequently the appellant paid the full price of the property transferred to him by filing his own compensa tion book and other compensation books purchased from other parties and in cash leaving an excess payment of Rs. 3, 855 on 26th May 1960.

3. It appears that on 20th June 1960, the appellant demanded rent at the rate of Rs. 80 per month instead of Rs. 50 on the basis the latest Municipal assessment from res pondent No.

4. This provoked him to file an appeal against the order dated 17th November 1959, 10th December 1959 and 14th January 1960, before the Additional Settlement Commis sioner. The appeal was found time‑barred but the learned officer in exercise of his suo motu revisional power issued notice for adjudicating the dispute between the parties. After hearing them and inspecting the premises in dispute he held it to be divisible in view of the fact that there were two gates, one leading to the ground floor and the other leading to the first floor having separate access to both the tenements. He held that the premises was constructed for the use of two families and divided it into two units. As a result the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner set aside the order of transfer of the entire premises in favour of the appellant and transferred the first floor to him and the ground floor to respondent No.

4. The appellant challenged this order before the Settlement Commissioner and the Chief Settlement Commissioner in their revisional jurisdiction but was unsuccessful. His review petition also met the same fate.

4. It was urged before the learned Single Judge that the order of the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 12th September 1960 was without jurisdiction inasmuch as it was passed in his appellate jurisdiction and not in his revisional jurisdiction. It was urged that once the learned officer had declined to condone delay he should have dismissed the appeal. In this connection the appellant brought certain facts to the notice of the Court. It appears from them that the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner had trusted the appeal filed by respondent No. 4 as time‑barred and only issued notice in his suo motu revisional power to the parties for reopening the case. The learned Single Judge repelled this contention and observed as under :‑ "It is contended that he has in fact treated the case as one of appeal which being time‑barred could not be entertained. But I think that this is a mere misdescription in the order, and does not affect the merits. The Additional Settlement Commissioner had decided to take up the case as one of revision, and had issued notice to the parties, and this he was competent to do. I do not think that any difference in appeal or revision affected his decision in the case." Mr. Hasan A. Shaikh, the learned counsel for the appellant, has challenged this finding in this Letters Patent Appeal before us. His contention is that since the impugned order was not passed under the revisional jurisdiction of the Additional Settlement Commissioner but in his appellate jurisdiction it should be treated as a nullity and the division of the property resulting in the separate transfer of the two tenements should not be upheld. In our view the contention of the learned counsel has no force. In writ jurisdiction once it is found that the authority whose order is attacked had jurisdiction to entertain the matter, the High Court never treats such orders as a nullity or interferes with them. In this case it cannot be urged that the Additional Settlement Commissioner lacked inherent jurisdic tion. In fact it is one of those cases in which the learned officer had ample jurisdiction but by mistake or omission has committed an irregularity in the description of the power in the exercise of which the impugned order was passed. It cannot be doubted that the learned officer from the very beginning intended and exercised the revisional jurisdiction vested in him. In our view merely because he wrongly described the dispute pending before him as an appeal will not render the impugned order as without jurisdiction and a nullity. We are in respect ful agreement with the view of the learned Single Judge on this point and find no ground to differ from him on this finding.

5. It was next urged by Mr. Hasan A. Shaikh the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner has disregarded the instructions of the Chief Settlement Commissioner in respect of the transfer of the bungalows contained at pages 68 and 69 of the Settlement Manual. This contention was repelled by the learned Single Judge on two‑fold grounds. In the first place he held that the instruc tions issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner were not of a statutory nature and could not nullify the effect of the main provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabi litation) Act, 1958. In the second place, he held that at best it could be argued that the learned officer did not pay attention to the instructions issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. But that would not constitute an error of law so as to call for interference by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction.

6. In support of his argument that the view of the learned Single Judge on this point is erroneous, the appellant's learned counsel has referred us to the above‑mentioned instructions of the Chief Settlement Commissioner about the disposal of the bungalows, contained in the Settlement Manual. It will be useful to reproduce the relevant portion of the instructions on which reliance is placed, which is as under :‑ "2 (2) (b).‑Bungalows should as far as possible, be transferred as complete units except in very obvious cases where they can be divided into more than one independent and complete bungalow." On the language of these instructions it is perfectly clear that they are not of a prohibitory or mandatory nature. It is only a direction to the Settlement Authorities that as far as possible the bungalows should be transferred as a complete unit buy it was open to them to treat them as more than one unit if they can be conveniently divided into more than one independent and complete bungalow. Mr. Hasan A. Shaikh contend.4 that it was applicable only in those cases where there were detached bungalows in a big bungalow and not to a bungalow which had no such detached accommodation. This contention has not impressed us. In the first place the word "bungalow" referred in the instructions is used in a loose sense because ordinarily it means residential premises which consists only of a ground floor. Strictly, the word "bungalow" cannot be applied to a premises which contains a first floor. In any c: case the instructions are only a directory nature. The discretion, to follow it depends on the facts of each case. If a premises has more than one independent tenements with independent access, there is little doubt that under the above‑mentioned instructions it is open to the Settlement Authorities to divide it into more than one unit and transfer them separately to its occupants on the basis of their valid claims. In doing so it cannot be urged that the officer concerned is disregarding or flouting this instruction. It is, therefore, quite obvious that the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner did not in any way disregard the above‑mentioned instructions of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. On this view of the matter it is unnecessary for us to go into the question whether the instruc tions issued are of a statutory nature or not. This ground also fails.

7. After careful consideration of the facts of this case, we are satisfied that substantial justice has been done between the parties and the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner has disposed of the premises in dispute in accordance with the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilita tion) Act, 1958. The learned officer has not committed any illegality which should call for the interference of this Court.

8. We, therefore, find no force in this appeal and dismiss it. In the special circumstances of the present case the parties are left to bear their own costs. S. Q. Appeal dismissed.