1990 PLP 1 (SCMR)

GHULAM MUJADDID, J. Mst. Nawab Bibi and four others seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 24‑4‑1983 in Intra‑Court Appeal. This was the second round of litigation between the parties. The first round concluded by judgment dated 30‑6‑1977 passed in the Constitution Petition (W.P.No.1771/R/76) which was not challenged further and which became final. By means of the aforesaid judgment, the High Court directed the Deputy Settlement Commissioner as follows: "The learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner would see that the rights conferred on the transferees and to whom Permanent Transfer Deeds have already been issued are not affected in any manner in the proceedings. Subject to these observations it is obvious that the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner may proceed with the application of the respondent No.l and demarcate the property transferred to the latter." It was in pursuance of the aforesaid direction that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner took cognizance of the matter and passed order dated 30‑8‑1977 which was impugned by the petitioners in the Constitution Petition and which had been upheld by the High Court because the Constitution Petition as well as the Intra‑Court Appeal by the petitioners were dismissed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterated the contentions which he had raised before the High Court and which were repelled. He argued that the petitioners had been given permanent transfer deed with regard to the property in dispute. The Settlement Authorities had become functus officio. It was next contended that the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act having been repealed the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was not competent to look into the matter. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on Mst. Aziz Fatima and others v. Abdul Hameed Farooqi and others (1976 S C M R 95) and Mst. Sardar Begum v. Sub‑Maj. (Rtd.) Aziz Ahmad and 9 others (1983 S C M R 90). We have considered these submissions and have also perused the case law cited at the Bar. The dictum laid down in the two cases, referred to above, is not applicable to the present case. The actual dispute is about demarcation. The transfer is not being upset. Moreover, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner took cognizance under the orders of the High Court. The following observation of the High Court in the Intra‑Court Appeal concludes the matter: "The learned counsel has not produced the order of the transfer made in favour of Taj Din. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that any portion of the property transferred to the predecessor‑in‑interest of the appellants has been taken away. The sketch plan of the property in dispute made by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner has been signed by the appellants as correct. The demarcation also proceeded on that basis." For the foregoing reasons, we don't find any merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed. MA.K./N‑186/S Petition dismissed.