MANGOO KHAN Versus ABDUL MALIK,

ORDER

1. JAVID IQBAL, J. ‑‑This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Mangoo Khan petitioner and is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 13 November, 1984 passed in L.P.A. No.117 of 1972. The case has an involved history. The petitioner and predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents Nos.1 and 2, namely Sufi Abdul Aziz applied respectively for the transfer of the house in dispute vide NCH forms. The house was first transferred to the petitioner but on appeal of Sufi Abdul Aziz the case was remanded for fresh decision. On this the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred the said house to Sufi Abdul Aziz. Thereafter the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and this was also the fate of his revision petition. However subsequently, on application of the petitioner, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 2 August, 1967, cancelled the transfer of the said house in favour of Sufi Abdul Aziz on the ground that he had concealed the fact that he had already obtained transfer of another house in Quetta against his CH form prior to the transfer of the present house. He did not transfer the said house to the present petitioner because he could not review the order of rejection of the petitioner's NCH form. Hence he ordered auction of the said house. On appeal of the petitioner the Additional Settlement Commissioner remanded the case again to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the Deputy Settlement commissioner after cancelling the transfer in favour of Sufi Abdul Aziz on the ground of double transfer, transferred it to the petitioner. Again on appeal filed by the legal representatives of Sufi Abdul Aziz the case was remanded to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for detailed inquiry. On revision by the legal representatives of Sufi Abdul Aziz in the background of the case the Settlement Commissioner referred the matter to the Chief Settlement Commissioner to revise the earlier order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 3 March 1964 so that it could be transferred to the petitioner, but he was informed that order dated 3 March 1964 could not be reopened in suo motu revision. He ordered accordingly, directing the parties to seek judicial remedy available to them. Thereafter writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore on the ground that the direction of the Chief Settlement Commissioner could not be subject to judicial review. The letters patent appeal of the petitioner was dismissed thereafter on the ground his revision petition was incompetent as earlier order of the Settlement Commissioner could not be reviewed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue before in the background of the case as it was a double transfer sand new facts had been revealed, this matter should have been reviewed, but the learned counsel could not show any authority on the basis of which this could be possible particularly when the case was hit by the provisions of section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act as subsequently amended whereunder only a Settlement Commissioner specially empowered by the Chief Settlement Commissioner could call for the record of the case dealt with by the Settlement authorities subordinate to him. When the petitioner had invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Settlement Commissioner he could not set aside the order of another Settlement Commissioner in exercise of such jurisdiction. So far a review is concerned section 21 was only limited to the correction of clerical mistakes or errors arising from accidental slip or omission. Thereafter when the petitioner had moved the Chief Settlement Commissioner he had no power under law either to exercise revisions jurisdiction himself or to confer such jurisdiction to the Settlement Commissioner to revise/review the order of another Settlement Commissioner. It was in this background that learned Judges of the Division Bench of the Lahore High Court arrived at the conclusion that the entire proceedings before the Settlement Commissioner and the Chief Settlement Commissioner for setting aside the order dated March 1964 were an exercise in futility. Since this is the legal position no case is made out for interference. As a result this petition is dismissed.

3. M.I./M‑420/S Petition dismissed.