P L D 1964 (W (PLP)

INAMULLAH, J.--‑The dispute relates to house No. A/112, 143, Hyderabad. The petitioner claims the transfer of the whole house. It would appear from the various orders passed by the Settlement Authorities that up to the 1st of July, 1961, the house in question was held to be one unit. The last order, namely, the order of Ist July 1961, was passed by Mr. Ghulam Shabbir, as Chief Settlement Commissioner. Under section 22 of the Act, he held that the house was not divisible and maintained the transfer in favour of the petitioner. He, however, by the order dated the 11th of November 1961, reviewed his order dated the 1st of July 1961. It would appear from a perusal of his order that he reviewed his previous order on two‑fold grounds: Firstly, he accepted the contention of the respondent that the order dated the 1st of July 1961 was passed without affording him an opportunity to be heard. In the second place, he modified his order of 1st July 1961, after having inspected the tenement in question. He came to the conclusion that the tenement in question consists of two units. He has given his reasons for his conclusion that the house consists of two units. The relevant portion of his order reads as under : I Lave inspected the site today. There is a partition wall between the two tenements. Both the tenements are numbered separately. One is 143 and the other 143/1. All the amenities are provided in each of the tenements. They have got separate entrances. I allow the review and order that both the tenements should be transferred on the basis of possession to both the parties.

2. Mr. Noorul Arfin, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has raised two‑fold contentions before us. We propose to dispose of these contentions.

3. He contended in the first place that the Chief Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 3rd of October 1961, as it would appear from the Gazette dated the 13th of July 1961, delegated his power to Mian Ghulam Shabbir, only in respect of section 20(2) of the Act. He contended that the Chief Settlement Commissioner did not delegate Mian Ghulam Shabbir, the power of review under section 21 of the Act. There is not much force in this contention. The relevant portion of section 21 reads as under The Chief Settlement Commissioner or a Settlement Com missioner or an Additional Settlement Commissioner or a Deputy Settlement Commissioner may either of his own motion at any time or on an application made in that behalf, within fifteen days, review, and while so reviewing modify, reverse, or confirm an order passed by himself or by any of his pre decessors in office. The admitted position is that Mian Ghulam Shabbir was delegated the power of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to revise the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner. He was for all intents and purposes the Chief Settlement Commissioner while exercising the power of revision. He, therefore, passed the order dated the 1st July as the Chief Settlement Commissioner. He could consequently revise the same without further delegation from the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Moreover, it would appear from the Notification dated the 20th December 1961, under which the Chief Settlement Commissioner delegated his power under section 20(2) to various Settlement Commissioners that he had also delegated the power to review.

4. At any rate even if we were to accept the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, no useful purpose can be served by allowing the petition on this ground. The accepted position is this : that Mian Ghulam Shabbir had the power to review his own orders from 20th of December 1961. If we set aside his order dated the 11th November 1961, and send back the case to him, he can exercise his power of review under section 21 of the Act.

5. In the second place, it was contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that Mian Ghulam Shabbir exceeded his power of review. We have already reproduced the relevant provision of section 21 of the Act. It would appear from the same that the Chief Settlement Commissioner has wide power, while reviewing his previous order, to modify, reverse, or confirm an order passed by himself. The order passed by him on I1thA November 1961, would be covered by the power of review given to the Chief Settlement Commissioner. No other point was urged.

6. We would for the reasons given above dismiss the petition but would make no order as to costs. K. B. A. Petition dismissed.