1975 PLP 67 (SCMR)

SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑These two petitions concern the same subject -matter, namely, house No. 43‑B, Model Town, Lahore, and they have been heard together and are now being disposed of under one order. Civil Petition No. 109 of 1974 is from the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court allowing the writ petition filed by respon dent No. 1 Mss. Zakia Sultana and declaring the order of transfer dated the 9th of February 1961, made by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in favour of petitioner Muhammad Hanif to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The N. C. H. Form filed by respondent No. 1 was directed to be decided by the Settlement authorities in acc6rdance with law. The case of the respondent was that she had been living in the house with her husband Ahmad Khan, an allottee of the house, since 1947. Upon the commencement of Settlement operations, Ahmad Khan had filed N. C. H. Form and the house was transferred to him on the 19th of December 1959. On the 27th of December 1960, upon some information supplied by the petitioner, the Settlement Commissioner held that Ahmad Khan was not a displaced person and, accordingly, cancelled the said transfer. Ultimately, upon the direction of the Settlement Commissioner the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred the house in favour of the petitioner on the 9th of February 1961. In the meantime, Ahmad Khan challenged the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated the 27th of December 1960, in Writ Petition No. 1429/11 of 1961 before the High Court but it was dismissed on the 21st of April 1964. His Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed on the 17th of March 1965. In Writ Petition No. 1429/11 of 1961 and Letters Patent Appeal arising out of the order in the said petition the question for consideration was the status of Ahmad Khan as a displaced person. Civil Petition No. 194 of 1965 has arisen out of Writ Petition No. 1429/11 of 1961. During the pendency of the aforesaid Civil Petition No. 194 of 1965 respondent Mst. Zakia Sultana filed N. C. H. Form on the 23rd of October 1965, for the transfer of the disputed house. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, however, passed an order dated the 31st of January 1967, and rejected the N. C. H. Form on the ground that the house had already been transferred to the petitioner in pursuance of an order of the Settlement Commissioner. The respondent, thereupon, moved an application before the Settlement Commissioner disputing the validity of the order of the 7th of January 1961, whereby the house was transferred to the petitioner. The Settlement Commissioner expressed his inability to review the matter and, accordingly, rejected the respondent's application. Thereupon, she filed Writ Petition No. 815/11 of 1967 and the petition was allowed on the 6th of November 1973. Civil Petition No. 109 of 1974 arises from this order. As regards Civil Petition No. 109 of 1974 it was contended before the High Court that the transfer in favour of the petitioner was a nullity because there was no provision transfer the Settlement Law enabling the Settlement authorities to transfer in favour of an informant a property which had not been a hidden evacuee property and in respect of which the original order of transfer had not suffered from any misrepresentation. It appears that the petitioner had claimed transfer on the basis of two Press Notes dated the 7th of April 1960, and the 29th of September 1960. So far as the second Press Note is concerned it appears from the case of Sh. Muhammad Amin v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (P L D 1966 Lah. 473) that this Pros Note had no legal sanction behind it. As for the first Press Note dated the 7th of April 1960, it only applied to the case of a "hidden evacuee property" and it did not apply to the present case inasmuch as both the parties had treated the property as evacuee property. The petitioner's only grievance was that Ahmad Khan was a local and he had fraudulently put N. C. H. Form. Obviously, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to the transfer on the 'basis of the Press Notes and the transfer to him was illegal. That being so the learned Single Judge of the High Court was right in holding that the order of transfer dated the 8th of February 1964, in favour of the petitioner was without lawful authority. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. In view of our decision in Civil Petition No. 109 of 1974, Petition No. 194 of 1965 filed by Ahmad Khan has not been pressed and it is, accordingly, dismissed as such. Petition dismissed.