1981 PLP 548 (SCMR)

G. SAFDAR SHAH, J.-Evacuee property No. S-1-4-S-11, situate at Guru Arjan Nagar, Lahore, was transferred to the petitioner on 31-3-1971 in an open public auction in which his highest bid of Rs. 9,600 was accepted. On 8-4-1971, the Additional Settlement Commissioner exercising the power of Chief Settlement Commissioner confirmed the said auction bid of petitioner, therefore vide order dated 31-5-1971, the P. T. D. of the property was issued to him. On 23-7-1973, however, respondent Younas filed an appeal against the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, dated 31-3-1971 by which the property had been auctioned in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the Form submitted by him for the transfer of the same property in the year 1966 had not been disposed of. Vide his order, dated 9-1-1974, the Additional Settlement Commissioner accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for the determination of the entitlement of the respondent. Vide his order, dated 30-5-1974, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner accepted the claim of the respondent and consequently transferred to him the property in dispute. The petitioner challenged the said order in the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1258-8/1974, but the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge, vide the impugned order, dated 6-6-1977. In seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, Ch. Muhammad Hussain, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended; "Firstly, that after the P. T. D. was issued in favour of the petitioner on 31-5-1971. the Additional Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdic tion to reopen the case ; Secondly, that the property in dispute was admittedly put to auction thrice and so the respondent, if he had any interest therein, should have raised timely objection thereto with a view to stopping the auction ; Thirdly, that the appeal filed by the respondent before the Additional Settlement Commissioner 23-7-1973 was barred by time and; Fourthly, that the Additional Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdic tion to set aside the auction sale of the house, as the same had been confirmed in favour of the petitioners by another Additional Settlement Commissioner exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner." There is no force in either of these contentions. In the appeal proceedings before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, the petitioner herein bad given up his right to the property in dispute, as in that behalf the said Officer recorded against him the following finding; "As requested by the respondent the amount paid by him toward the auction price of this property should be refunded to him under the Rules. He stated that he is not interested in the transfer of the shop without the residential portion of the property in dispute and'' requested that the auction be cancelled in his name and the amount of auction price refunded to him." The learned counsel conceded before us that not only no challenge was made to the said order by the petitioner but subsequently he filed au N. C. H. Form under Settlement Scheme No. VIII for the transfer of the property in dispute but the same was rejected. It was for these reasons that the learned Judge in the High Court rejected the writ petition filed before him by the petitioner, and we respectfully agree with his conclusion. The other difficulty in the way of the petitioner is that when he was issued the P. T. D. of the property, the Form of the respondent filed by him under Settlement Scheme No. VIII was pending in the Department, and so under the Rules governing the issuance of P. T. D., the property in dispute could not be transferred to the petitioner nor the P. T. D. of the same issued to him. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.