1981SCMR706 (PLP)

KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-The dispute in this case is about a house Bearing No. 15-S-4-B situated in Qila Lachhman Singh (Ravi Road), Lahore. The said house was transferred by the learned Deputy Settlement Commis sioner to Mst. Akhtari Begum (respondent No. 3 herein) on her C. H. Form. Mst. Akhtari Begum is a paternal aunt of the petitioner and is admittedly a claimant displaced person from India. The matter remained quiet for a good deal of time until September, 1973, when. respondent No. 3 demanded rent from the petitioner, who retaliated in this way that on 2-10 1973, he sent an application to the Chief. Settlement Commissioner pleading that actually he was a transferee of this house on his N. C. H. form and was holder of a P. T. O. dated 8-1-1960 for the same. The petitioner was informed by a communication dated 28-3-1974 that "since the property in question has been disposed of and no longer exists in the evacuee pool, no assistance can be provided to you on the executive side. You may seek legal remedy in the proper Court under the law, if so advised".

2. Thereupon on 18-4-1974 the petitioner without availing of the remedy of an appeal filed a direct revision before the Settlement Commis sioner accompanied with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in- that revision he repeated the plea of his being an earlier transferee of the house on his N. C. H. form. The revision petition was dismissed by the learned Settlement Commissioner on 5-6-1974.

3. At that juncture the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing No. 1173-R/1974 but without any success as the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 1-7-1974.

4. The petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.

5. Learned counsel has argued that his client was an earlier transferee of the property in dispute on the basis of his N. C. H. form and was holder of a P. T. O. dated 8-1-1960. In the presence of the aforesaid P. T. O. he argued, the subsequent transfer to respondent No. 3 was without lawful authority. The material placed in this paler-book, however, shows that respondent No, 3 filed a C. H. form hearing No. E. 5266 which was entertained on 4-5-1960. In connection with the proceedings for the transfer of this property, the petitioner duly appeared on 9-6-1960 and made a statement that he had not filled any form/,application for. its transfer and that the same may be transferred to his paternal aunt. On the same date Mg. Akhtari Begum also appeared, and made a statement and claimed transfer of the property though she referred to her C. H. form bearing No. 7581 (the petitioner has not raised any plea with regard to this form of the respondent). The case was forwarded with a report of the Inspector dated 11-6-1960 on which the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 25-6-1960 passed an order of transfer in favour of respondent No.

3. Learned counsel wanted to take: exception to the aforesaid proceedings and submitted that he had never appeared before any settlement authority who made any statement of the kind attributed to him. however, his plea has not been accepted by the settlement authorities who refused to reopen this matter after the lapse of such a long time. We see nothing wrong with the view taken by the Department and feel no justification for reopening a matter which was finalized long ago especially when the petitioner himself did not take any step to establish his entitlement if any and filed a revision petition (without availing of the remedy of an appeal) only on 18-4-1974, after a period of about 14 years from the date of transfer to respondent No.

3. It is further a mystery that if allegedly a P. T. O. was at all issued to the petitioner why he took no steps to follow it up to a P. T. D. during all that long time. In the circumstances the Department committed no illegality in not re opening a chapter which stood closed in favour of respondent No.

3. Even otherwise the orders of the settlement authorities seem to be substantial (just and fair because neither in equity nor in law, the petitioner who on hi own showing is simply a non-claimant can have preference over respondent No. 3, who is admittedly a claimant and would obviously have a prior right for the transfer of this property. It appears that the petitioner involved himself in a futile litigation which in no circumstance could have succeeded against a claimant; especially when he himself at one stage accepted this position and raised no objection! to the preferential claim of her paternal aunt.

6. Looked at from whatev6r angle the result is that this is not a fit case for grant of special leave. The petition has no merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.