L.M. STRATFORD Versus AMJAD HUSSAIN
ORDER
1. JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑ This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by the petitioners and is directed against judgment dated 3rd June, 1980 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Letters Patent Appeal No.50 of 1970.
2. Briefly the facts are that the petitioners were running school in the house in dispute since 1937. L.H. Form was submitted for the transfer of the said house on behalf of the school on 6th August, 1959. The property in question was valued more than Rs.10,000, but this is also an admitted fact that it was used as a school since long before the Partition. On 4th December, 1959 the Deputy Settlement Commissioner rejected the L.H. Form and ordered inclusion of the said house in earmarking. The petitioners did not challenge this order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in appeal. In the meantime predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents Nos.l to 9, namely Syed Muhammad Hussain was trying to get same house transferred, as the Chief Settlement Commissioner had made an order on 5th January, 1961 that he may be provided with a house. On 18th February, 1961 on the report of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to the effect that the said house was available and on his report the Additional Settlement Commissioner vide his recommendation dated 20th February, 1961 brought to the notice of the Chief Settlement Commissioner that the said house was available and that it be earmarked to Syed Muhammad Hussain predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents. On the basis of this recommendation the said house was transferred to Syed Muhammad Hussain by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 25th February, 1961 and P.T.O. was accordingly issued to him on 28t1. February, 1961. On 13th March, 1961 Syed Muhammad Hussain issued notice to the school i.e. petitioners to the effect that he was landlord of the said premises as it had been transferred to him. On this the petitioners on 29th March, 1961 challenged the order dated 28th February, 1961 whereby the P.T.O. was issued in favour of Syed Muhammad Hussain. But the Additional Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 25th July, 1961 rejected the appeal on the grounds that the petitioners' L.H. Form had been dismissed earlier, that the property was worth more than Rs.10,000 and that consequently the petitioners could not legally get it transferred for the school. This order was not challenged in appeal or revision by the petitioners. However sometime in May, 1962 they filed a review petition against the order dated 25th February, 1961 passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner transferring the said house to Syed Muhammad Hussain. The review was dismissed on 18th May, 1962 and P.T.D. was issued in favour of Syed Muhammad Hussain on 26th May, 1962. Then the petitioners filed writ petition on 22nd November, 1963 but since some objections were raised, it was returned to the petitioners and was re-filed on 7th March, 1964. On 4th February, 1970 the said writ petition of the petitioners was accepted by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court and the case was remanded for the disposal of L.H. Form filed by the petitioners in 1959. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 4th February, 1970 was challenged by the respondents in L.T.A. which was accepted on 3rd June, 1980 mainly on two grounds, namely that the writ petition suffered from laches and that the remanding of the case for the disposal of L.H. Form was .not relevant because in the light of para. 20 of the Settlement Scheme No.1 if a building which was a house or a shop on 14th August, 1947 had been converted to some other use, then the Chief Settlement Commissioner would determine as to whether it should be disposed of as a house or a shop or any other type of property. Thereafter under Press Note dated 3rd May, 1960 (printed at pages 139‑141 of the Settlement Manual (old edition) the Chief Settlement Commissioner directed that if a house or shop had heed converted to some other use after 14th August, 1947 then it would be transferred in the manner given therein. It was however held by the L.P.A. Bench that since in the instant case the property had not been converted into a school after 14th August, 1947 the provisions of para 20 of Settlement Scheme No.1 read with the aforesaid Press Note were not applicable to the case,, Furthermore since the worth of the property was more than Rs.10,000/‑, then as a house it could not be transferred to a local.
3. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that under para 20 of the Settlement Scheme No.1 read with the aforesaid Press Note the property which had been converted into a school before the Partition was covered by these instructions and if the school claimed its transfer on that basis it should have been transferred to it.
4. Learned counsel for the caveator‑respondents on the other hand argued that in accordance with the aforesaid instructions only those converted properties fell in the category of such a transfer which had been converted to some other use after 14th August, 1947.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties we grant leave to appeal in this case to examine, inter alia, whether the L.P.A. Bench while interpreting para 20 of the Settlement Scheme No.1 read with the aforesaid Press Note could set aside the order of the learned Single Judge whereunder the matter was remanded to the Settlement Authority for the determination of the main point in controversy. Furthermore in the circumstances of the case it is also to be determined as to what is the correct interpretation of para 20 of Settlement Scheme No .l read with the aforesaid Press Note. Security to be deposited in the sum of Rs.5,000/‑. The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if any.
6. M.I./M‑445/S Leave granted.