MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J. ‑‑The dispute between the parties relates to a shop which was purchased by the petitioner in a public auction held by the Settlement authorities. Subsequently, the petitioner entered into an agreement of association with one Jalal Din whereby he surrendered half portion of the shop in favour of the latter. Consequently, a joint P.T.O. was issued in favour of the petitioner and Jalal Din. There is now no controversy about the share given to Jalal Din.
2. Admittedly, at the time when the auction took place the petitioner, apart from being a claimant himself, was also the attorney of respondent No.3. In November, 1963, he made a statement before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to the effect that he had taken part in the auction as attorney of respondent No.3 and that the bid sheet should be corrected accordingly. On the basis of this statement, an Additional Settlement Commissioner directed the correction of the relevant record. Later, another P.T.O. was issued in favour of respondent No.3 and Jalal Din. This was done without cancellation of the first P.T.O. which had been issued in favour of the petitioner and Jalal Din.
3. There was prolonged litigation between the petitioner and respondent No.3 before the Settlement authorities over the portion in dispute. The petitioner did not disown his statement of November, 1963, but relied upon another agreement of association, applications, affidavits and power of attorney allegedly executed by respondent No.3 to show that he had transferred his share in favour of the petitioner. In the final round a Deputy Settlement Commissioner relied upon the statement of the petitioner of November, 1963, rejected the other documents produced by the petitioner and approved the P.T.O. issued in favour of respondent No.3 and Jalal Din. The Settlement Commissioner declined to interfere with the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the orders of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner but without any success. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
4. It is to be noticed that the documents upon which the petitioner relies to show that respondent No.3‑had transferred his share in the shop in his favour have been described by respondent No.3 as forgeries. On the other hand, it has not been disputed by the petitioner that he had taken part in the auction merely as attorney e of respondent No.3 and that he had asked the Settlement authorities to correct the record accordingly. In the circumstances it is difficult to hold that in transferring the shop to respondent. No.3 and Jalal Din the Settlement authorities acted illegally or without jurisdiction: This petition is without any merit and is dismissed as such.
S.Q./M‑364/S Petition dismissed.