1987 PLP 113 (SCMR)

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑This appeal, by leave of this Court, is directed against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 18‑12‑1973 in Writ Petition No. 484‑R of 1967. The appellant was transferred House No. 1797, Ward No. 10, Multan City, under the Earmarking scheme framed under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The P.T.O. was issued in his favour on 11‑10‑1960 followed by a P.T.D. The respondents are transferees of the adjoining plot of land bearing Khasra No. 3698 which was transferred in their favour on 11‑1‑1961. These transfers have become final and are no longer in dispute. The dispute which has now arisen between the parties has arisen pursuant to the respondents applying to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for correction of their P.T.O. The correction that they desired was that the entry relating to the transfer in their favour, namely, Khasra No. 3698 should be substituted by the entry Khasra Nos. 5623 and 5624. This correction was allowed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner vide his order, dated 23‑7‑1965. The appellant filed an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner against the above order which was allowed by him, on 26‑9‑1966. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner held that the House bearing No. 1797 transferred to the appellant was, in fact, comprised Khasra Nos. 5623 and 5624. On this finding the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, dated 23‑7‑1965 was set aside and the correction made by him in the transfer order in favour of the respondent No. 1 was cancelled. The respondent filed a revision petition against the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner which was dismissed by the learned Settlement Commissioner, vide order, dated 18‑3-1967 he legality of the orders of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner were challenged by respondent No. 1 in the Lahore High Court at Lahore by Writ Petition. No. 484‑R of 1967. A learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition vide order, dated 18‑12 1973 and set aside both the orders passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner and declared them to be without lawful authority on the ground that neither order had any bearing on the dispute raised in the appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner. This appeal, with the leave of this Court, is directed against the said order of the High Court, dated 18‑12‑1973. We have perused the record with care and also heard the learned counsel for the respondents. We think that the transfer orders passed in favour of the parties on 11‑10‑1960 and 11‑1‑1961 respectively had become final and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner could not have modified them in and way. Hence the order passed by him, on 23‑7‑1965 was bad in law. Similarly, the orders passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner in appeal, dated 26‑9‑1966 declaring that the House No. 1797 transferred to the respondent comprised Khasra Nos. 5623 and 5624, as also the revisional order, dated 18‑3‑1967 upholding the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner must also fall as they are in pursuance of the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, dated 23‑7‑1965. The result is that all the three orders, dated 23‑7‑1965, 26‑9‑1966 and 18‑3‑1967 passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Additional Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner respectively which were passed after the orders of transfer had become final are found to be contrary to law and of no legal effect and it is only the orders of transfer passed on 11‑10‑1960 (in favour of the appellant) transferring House No. 1797 in his favour and the order, dated 11‑1‑1961transferring Khasra No. 3698 in favour of the respondents are the operative orders in the field. In case of dispute as to the exact boundaries of the property transferred to the parties the same can be resolved by the civil Court. This appeal is allowed in the above terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. M.I. Appeal allowed.