1968 SCMR 181 (PLP)

S. A. RAHMAN, parties in this case were disputing about a choubara situated above shop No. 140, Block No. 3, Sargodha. Another shop No. 139, adjoined it in the same building and apparently the choubara extended over that shop also. An A ssistant Settlement Commissioner, by order dated the 8th January 1960, decided that shop No. 139 should be placed on the auction list, shop No. 143 was transferred to Mst. Hurmat Bibi and the choubara over both the shops, was transferred to Qutabuddin, the petitioner before us Shop No. 139 was in the possession of Muhammad Arif and Muhammad Waris who are locals. Both Qutabuddin and Mst. Hurmat Bibi file appeals against the orders of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner allowed the appeal and transferred shop No. 139, as well as the choubara above it, to Qutabuddin by order dated the 16th March 1960. The transfer in favour of Mst. Hurmat Bibi was retained intact. At this stage, the local occupants of shop No. 139 filed a revision petition before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Who by order dated the 20th May 1960 decided that shop, No. 139 should be put on the auction list. The choubara above -this shop was allowed to remain with Qutabuddin. A second revision petition was filed before the Chief Settlement Commis sioner by Qutabuddin, but it was rejected on the 10th August 1960. At the instance of the local occupants of shop No. 139, the Additional Settlement Commissioner, after obtaining permis sion from the Settlement Commissioner, reviewed his predecessor's order and transferred shop No. 139 to the local occupants, on the basis that they had effected special repairs to it. Qutabuddin went up in revision before the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Mr. S. M. Azhar, who, by his order dated the 29th April 1964, set aside the order passed in review and restored the order of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, dated the 8th January 1960, MSt. Hurmat Bibi then tiled a petition for a writ, under Article 98 of the Constitu tion, to challenge this order. The High Court held that the order passed in review by the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the revisional order of Mr. S. M. Azhar in relation to that order, were both without jurisdiction, as the Additional Settlement Commissioner's order was contrary to the final order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner earlier. They, therefore, quashed both these orders and left the position to be regulated by the previous orders. From the order of the High Court, Qutabuddin seeks special leave to appeal. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mazhar-ul-Hatt Sheikh, at first attempted to argue that the order passed in revision by Mr. S. M. Azhar, had only restored the- position that obtained under the previous order of the Chief Settlement Com missioner and, therefore, should not have been set aside. At the same time, he suggested that the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, dated the 20th May 1960, was not quite clear and might prejudice his client's case. He was himself inclined to interpret it in his client's favour, but he suggested that another interpretation was also possible, which apparently was in the minds of the learned Judges of the High Court. Whatever the correct interpretation of that order may be, the position, as envisaged in the impugned order of the High Court, appears to us to be correct. The order passed in review by the Additional Settlement Commissioner being contrary to that of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, was one without jurisdiction and, therefore, void. There was no question of such an order being revised by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner. The High Court order therefore, calls for no interference and the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.