1968 SCMR 277 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.--This appeal concerns the transfer of property No. 2-S-46, Block No. 1, Sargodha. It is a composite building and under the second proviso to subsection (12) of section 2 of the. Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilita tion) Act, 1958, an absolute jurisdiction vested in the Settlement authorities to order that the whole of such building or premises or such part or parts thereof as may be specified in the order shall be deemed to be a shop or a house. The appellant a claimant displaced person from Ambala was on the 22nd March 1948, was allotted one shop in the said building bearing No. 2-S-46/B for carrying on a soda water factory in it and a little later the respondent No. 2 also a claimant displaced person was on the 22nd April. 1948, was allotted another portion bearing No. 2-S-46/A for carrying on a soap-making factory in it. Later on other displaced persons came to occupy the remaining portions of the building as shops-. All of them filed C. SIC. H. Forms for the transfer of the portions in their respective possession while the respondent No. 2 applied for transfer of the entire building to him as unregistered industrial concern allotted by the Director of Industries. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner by order dated the 7th December 1959, rejected the claim by the respondent No. 2 that the whole of the property was an unregistered industrial concern and apportioned it, among the various claimants. The appellant got a shop iacluding a small room at the back while the respondent No. 2 in addition to portion 'B' in his possession was igen the chaubzra over it as a residential unit. Not satisfied with the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner both the appellant and the respondent No. 2 filed appeals before the Additional Settlement Commissioner who on the 4th May 1960, remanded the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for reconsideration and examination as to whether the property in dispute was an unregistered factory. On remand the Deputy Settlement Commissioner maintained the transfer of the shop and the back room in favour of the appellant, but he gave part of the roof over this portion to the respondent No. 2 as part of the courtyard of the chaubara, Both the appellant and the respondent No. 2 went up in appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner who on the I lth November 1960, rejected both the appeals, but with the modifica tion that the back room of the shop transferred to the appellant was taken away from him and given to the respondent No.

2. This order, of the Additional Settlement Commissioner was maintained by the higher Settlement authorities against which the appellant moved the High Court in writ jurisdiction, but without any success. In view of the decision in the case of Ch. Bahar Mohammad v. The Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner P. S. L. A. No. 58 of 1962 decided on 4-4-1962 leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the original order made by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner as a delegatee of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner under section 2(12) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act was in appeal open to interference by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The law on the subject, has since been modified and it has been provided with retrospective effect that an order made by a subordinate Settlement authority as a delegatee of the, Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner shall be deemed to have been always open to review in exercise of the appellate. and revisional jurisdiction by the higher Settlement authorities. The learned counsel for the appellant concedes that the ground on which leave to appeal was granted no longer holds good. He, however, desires us to examine the merits of the decision made by the Settlement authorities which as often observed falls with the exclusive jurisdiction of those authorities and is not B tenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court except when it is shown that the impugned order suffers from lack or excess of jurisdiction or an error of law apparent on the face of the record, This appeal must, therefore, fail and we thereby dismiss it, keeping in view the circumstances of the case leave the parties bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.