FAQIR MUHAMMAD Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN

ORDER

1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J. ‑‑The Additional Settlement Commissioner, in his order, dated 15‑6‑1960, had passed an order dividing the property No. 135, Ward No. 7', Lyallpur and transferring a portion of it to the petitioner and the other portion to the respondents. He had also given some directions with regard to the rights of the parties to the access and to use of the courtyard. On the petitioner's application to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to demarcate the property in terms of the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in his order, dated 9‑10‑1968 had held that there was a typographical error in the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and in the context of the whole order the Additional Settlement Commissioner had meant that the petitioner would have no right to the use of the courtyard. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a suit for declaration to the effect that the order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, dated 9‑10‑1968 in respect of the courtyard on the lane side was illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction and also sought a permanent injunction. The learned Civil Judge vide his judgment, dated 16‑6‑1973 held that the jurisdiction of the civil Court was barred and the plaint was returned to the petitioner under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. An appeal against this order was made before the Additional District Judge, Lyallpur, which, too, was dismissed, on 3‑11‑1975. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a civil revision in the Lahore High Court (No. 92 of 1976) but a learned Single Judge of the said Court also dismissed the same vide his judgment, dated 27‑5‑1976. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.

2. Mr. Hussain Awan was unable to say when both the parties were issued P.T.Ds. to establish that the property was no longer in the compensation pool and the settlement authorities had become functus officio when the Deputy Settlement Commissioner passed the impugned order. In these circumstances, the view of the civil Courts that their jurisdiction was barred under section 25 of the Displaced Person (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 appears to be correct. Moreover, it was held by cogent reasons that the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was, on the merits, quite correct.

3. This is therefore, not' a fit case for interference.

4. This petition must fail and is, accordingly, dismissed.

5. S . Q . ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave petition dismissed