1968 SCMR 552 (PLP)

FAZLE-AKBAR, J,-The dispute in this case relates to a room which is on the roof of a house bearing No. A-460/1, Dhobi Gali, Old Sukkur. Nafisa Khatoon, a claimant, was in possession of a small portion of the said house and the petitioner, Sycd Imran Shah, a non-claimant, was in possession of the major portion of that house. On 6-2-62, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sukkur, ordered "that the portion on the ground floor which is in possession of Mst. Nafisa Begum as well as the 2 rooms on the roof of this premises may be transferred to Mst. Nafisa .Khatoon and the portion in possession of Imran Shah, except the two rooms on the roof of the transferee Mst. Nafisa of the upper portion, may be transferred to Imran Shah". He then bifurcated the rent of Rs. 30 as follows:- Rs. 10 for the premises transferred to Alst. Nafisa. Rs. 20 for the premises transferred to S. Imran Shah. It may be mentioned here that the plot attached to the house had been auctioned and its rent was fixed at Rs.

30. On 3-12-63, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, revised the bifurcation of Municipal Assessment as follows;

Unit 1 Auctioned Rs. 3 Unit 2 in possession of Nafisa Khatoon Rs. 5 Unit 3 in possession of Imran Shah. Rs. 12 Thereafter, appendices were issued to them and they paid the transfer price accordingly. Subsequently, on 6-7-64, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner cancelled the transfer of Imran Shah for non-payment of transfer price. But, on appeal, his order was reversed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner and he was allowed to retain the portion transferred to him. A revision petition filed against the ordee was also dismissed. It may be pointed out that during these proceedings it transpired that there was only one room on the roof and Mashkoor Ali, respondent No. 3, the transferee of Nafisa Khatoon, demanded from Imran Shah rent for the said room and on his failure to pay the rent, started ejectment proceedings. This led to a dispute as to whether this room was included in the transfer deed of Nafisa Khatoon and the Settlement Commissioner eventually held that the order dated 6-2-62 passed by the Settlement Commissioner was final and that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had no power to review the said order. The petitioner then moved a writ in the High Court, challenging the said order, but his petition was dismissed. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court. By the order dated 6-2-62, the room on the roof of the house had been given to Nafisa Khatoon and as the petitioner did not file any appeal or revision against that order, it became final. Subsequently, in December 1963, the Deputy Settlement Commis sioner revised the bifurcation of municipal assessment. The High Court, therefore, rightly held that the order of 3-12-63 could not be regarded as one revising the order of 6-2-62. In these circumstances, we see no ground for interference and dismiss this petition. Petition dismissed.