1986 PLP 1005 (MLD)

Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad for Respondent. Date of hearing: 5th February 1986. Through this Constitutional Petition Noor Muhammad petitioner wants this Court' to declare the order, dated 27‑4‑1978 of Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Plots), Lahore, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The dispute relates to the transfer of plot bearing Khasras Nos. 5230 and 5232, situated in Qila Gujjar Singh, Lahore. The petitioner s case is that he being in possession of the plot and having qlso constructed more than th of the entire plot had filed Form under Settlement Scheme No. VIII for the transfer of the same to him. The Form was rejected by, the D . S.C. on 19‑11‑1975. The petitioner challenged order in Writ Petition No. 729/R/1976,which was accepted on 16‑1‑1977 and the case was remanded to the D.S.C, for fresh decision in accordance with law and principle laid down in case 'Mst. Mahmooda Tehsin v. S. Ijaz Hussain Shah and others P L D 1965 S C

618. On remand, the D.S.C. vide order, dated 27‑4‑1978 again rejected the Form of the petitioner and directed that the disputed plot be included in the auction list for disposal as available urban property. Form No. 35, dated 8‑10‑1973 filed by the petitioner under Settlement Scheme No. VIII has been rejected by the D.S.C. on the ground‑that: "Under the law one person is entitled only for, one house, one shop, one industrial concern and one plot subject to his entitlement under the law"; and that "in the instant case the applicant is already transferee of plot Khasra No. 5233‑5236‑Min measuring 8 Marlas under Settlement Scheme VIII, hence, he is disentitled to apply or seek transfer of any other plot which will amount to multiple transferred the same is not permissible under the law." Hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that neither the Settlement Scheme No. VIII nor para No. 13 of the Schedule III (Bldgs. Site) contemplates any condition that no more than one plot/building site could be transferred to one person. Conversely, the learned counsel for the Settlement Department has supported the impugned order.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that the learned Deputy Settlement,) Commissioner has not quoted the law under which one person cannot be allotted more than one plot. I further find that neither the Settlement Scheme No. VIII nor para No. 13 of the Schedule (III Bldgs. Site restrains the allotment of more than one plot to any person. The learne counsel for Settlement Department has also not been able to quote art by law in support of the findings of the learned D . S . C . I feel that then impugned order is also violative of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in case 'Mehmooda Tehseen v. S. Ijaz Hussain Shah and others P L D 1965 SC 618.

5. For what has been said above, the petition is accepted and th impugned order is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The parties are left to bear their own costs. M.Y. H. Petition accepted