1984 PLP 311 (SCMR)

S. A. NUSRAT, J.‑‑The dispute in this petition relates to a house property No. S. 1/52‑S‑9, Purani Meva Mandi, Lahore. The said house was allegedly purchased by the petitioner in an unrestricted public auction held on 30‑11‑1977 by the Settlement Department. On the other hand, the property was also claimed by the first respondent on account of an agreement of asso ciation dated 27‑11‑1962 whereby one Ahmad Sharif had surrendered his rights in her favour. She claimed to have obtained a P. T. D. in her favour dated 15‑6‑1964. On 29‑7‑1972 the Deputy Settlement Commissioner addressed a notice under section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabili tation) Act, 1958 to respondent No. 3 and others alleging that they were unauthorisedly occupying the house in question and asking them to show cause as to why they should not be ejected. The respondents having found that the house in question bad been included in the auction list and allegedly purchased by the petitioner, filed a constitution petition in the High Court challenging such transfer. As the dispute related to genuineness of the transfer documents issued to the patties, the learned High Court first asked the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to make necessary verification of the documents in the presence of the parties. In spite of the repeated opportunities given by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner no one appeared before him and hence the enquiry could not be completed. In these circumstances, the learned High Court found that the matter involved disputed questions of facts which could not be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction and the matter was, therefore, sent back to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for conducting enquiry into the matter in the presence of the parties and to decide the case according to law. It is a matter of regret that so far no enquiry has been held, as informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in spite of the fact that no order of stay in this behalf was passed by this Court. The order of stay was only to the effect that the respondents will not dispose of the property which was not a bar for holding of any enquiry. Having heard the learned counsel, we are satisfied that the order of the learned Single Judge in the High Court is unexceptionable and if the parties had taken interest in the matter and appeared before the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner, the dispute may have been resolved by now. The petition in the circumstances fails and is dismissed accordingly. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however requests that a direction be issued to the Settlement authorities for early disposal of the case. We, there fore order that the direction of the learned High Court should be complied with by the Authorised Officer of the Settlement Department having jurisdic tion in the case at an early date. S. Q. Petition dismissed.