1979 PLP 58 (SCMR)

NASIM HASAN SHAM, J.‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 26‑8‑1975 of the Lahore High Court, dismissing the peti tioner's writ petition challenging the order dated 31‑1‑1972 of the Settlement Commissioner (Land) transferring the house in dispute to respondent No.

1. The house in question, situate in village Luliani, Tehsil Kasur, was transferred to respondent No. 1, an allottee of the same since 1951, by the Settlement Department on 7‑5‑1968 and a permanent transfer deed was issued to him. The petitioner claiming to be a transferee under Settlement Scheme No. VII of this very house by virtue of the order dated 23‑8‑1968 made an application to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) on coming to know of the order passed in favour of respondent No. 1 dated 7‑5‑1968. This application was subsequently converted into an appeal, after condonation of the delay. The appeal was accepted on 30th July, 1971 and the order dated 7‑5‑1968 transferring the house to respondent No. 1 was cancelled and the transfer in favour of the petitioner by the order dated 23‑8‑1968 was maintained. Respondent No. 1 filed a revision petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner and was decided by the Settlement Commissioner (Land), with powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Land) It was accepted on 31‑1‑1972 and the order in favour of respondent No. 1 dated 7‑5‑1968 was thereby revived. The petitioner moved the High Court in writ jurisdiction and challenged the order of the Settlement Commissioner on various grounds regarding jurisdiction of the Settlement Commissioner to hear and determine the revision petition of respondent No. 1 on the ground that the house in dispute being situated in rural area, the Settlement Commissioner (Land) action under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 was not authorised to perform functions under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. The learned Judge hearing the petition did not go into this question because the petitioner on the basis of her own stand taken in the ejectment proceedings filed by respondent No. 1 that she was in occupation of a house belonging to Mangel Singh evacuee and not in possession of the house belonging to Fauja Singh which had been transferred to respondent No. 1 was considered not to have any entitlement to the transfer of the house in dispute. The High Court also repelled the argument that respondent No. 1, being a minor, was ineligible for transfer of the property under the Displaced Persons Act on the ground that there was nothing in the settlement law prohibiting the transfer of properties to minors. As a matter of fact, the Settlement Commissioner found that respondent No. 1 was indeed not a minor. In conclusion, while dismissing the writ petition the High Court observed that the petitioner could not rely upon the weaknesses of her adversary, but had to succeed on the strength of her own title, which however, was not there. Before us, the petitioner has confined herself to factual points, emphasis being on her possession of the house in dispute. The petitioner submitted that the property occupied and transferred to her by the order dated 23‑8‑1968 is the very property which is in dispute and, according to her, has been illegally transferred to respondent No.

1. In this connection it is submitted that the petitioner only claimed to be in possession of a portion, namely, one room, which forms part of the house transferred to respondent No. 1. which is shown as consisting of a number of rooms and that Mangel Singh was the father of Fauja Singh and the omission, especially of this last mentioned circumstance, has resulted in an error being committed both by the Settlement Commissioner and the learned Judge in the High Court. We find that these facts were before the Settlement Commissioner and have also been duly considered by the High Court and we are not inclined to interfere with the findings recorded in respect of these factual points. The Settlement Commissioner, in his detailed order, has held not only that the petitioner was not in possession, but that she was only able to procure the order of transfer dated 23‑8‑1968. Moreover, she had at no point of time established her entitlement to the house in question. We consider that the learned Judge in the High Court, in the circumstances, was justified in holding that the petitioner had no entitlement in the property and in the absence of this she could not succeed. This petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.