ALLAH RAKHA SAJID vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LYALLPUR AHD Other

ORDER

1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-The dispute between the parties relates to a godown in portion 'A' of the property bearing No. 208, Ward No. 10, Lyallpur.

2. In course of the hearing of his writ petition before the High Court the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his case to the transfer of the disputed godown in favour of respondent No. 6 Imam Bakhsh (respondent No. 4 herein).

3. Property No. 208 was found by the Settlement authorities to consist of two wholly independent and separate portions i.e. 'A' and 'B'. It was also found that after the Independence portion 'A' was converted into an industrial concern.

4. The petitioner applied for the transfer of the entire property No. 208 on the ground that he was an allottee of the property and had been running an industrial concern there. It may be mentioned here that one godown in portion 'A' could not be obtained possession of by the petitioner. The petitioner conceded before the Settlement Commissioner that one Alauddin was a co-allottee of the property and he too, was running an industrial concern there.

5. On the 22nd of April 1961 the Deputy Settlement Com--missioner held that portion 'A' had been converted into an industrial concern and therefore, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the portion.

6. Portion 'B' was transferred to Iqbal Ali, a claimant, and Malik Rashid Akhtar jointly as they were the only two applicants for this portion.

7. On the 17th of October 1961 the Additional Settlement Commissioner divided portion 'A' into two parts and trans--ferred them to the petitioner and Alauddin. The claim of Imam Bakhsh and Nabi Bux who had applied jointly for transfer was rejected.

8. On appeal by Imam Bakhsh and applications for revision, inter alia, by the petitioner and Alauddin, the Settlement Commissioner found that Imam Bux, who was a claimant, and had submitted a C.

9. H. Form for its transfer, had been in possession of the disputed godown in portion 'A'. He was accordingly transferred the godown.

10. On a writ petition filed by the petitioner from this order the High Court held that the petitioner failed to prove his possession of the disputed godown on the target date I.e. The 20th of December 1958 and therefore, he was not entitled to its transfer. Furthermore as the Settlement authority had treated the godown as a shop, and it was competent to do so the High Court could not interfere with such treatment. The petition against Imam Bakhsh was accordingly dismissed. The transfer of the godown in favour of Imam Bakhsh was however, set aside and the case remanded to the Settlement Com--missioner to decide afresh after hearing Imam Bakhsh also whether he was in possession of the godown and was entitled to its transfer. This petition is from this order of the High Court.

11. It has been contended before us that the High Court had illegally excluded the petitioner from taking part in the proceeding before the Settlement Commissioner in regard to the transfer of the disputed godown.

12. We are unable to accept this contention. It was found that the petitioner was not in possession of the godown which was held by the Settlement authority to be a shop and separate from the converted industrial concern. The petitioner has, therefore, no locus standi to claim transfer of the godown. Under paragraph 15(3) of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, if an industrial concern not allotted by the industrial Rehabilitation Board is in possession of a displaced person or a local then such concern upon his application can be transferred to him on certain terms. This provision has, therefore, no application to the petitioner.

13. Even otherwise we do not think it to be an appropriate case to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court.

14. The petition is accordingly dismissed.