AMINUDDIN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND Other

ORDER

1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-The petitioner in this case obtained an evacuee house situated in New Hala in the district of Hyderabad, bearing Custodian No. B/80, after the same had been surrendered by the transferees to the petitioner under an agreement of association. The agreement was accepted by the Settlement authorities and a P. T. O. Was issued in favour of the petitioner on 11-3-1964.

2. Three other evacuee properties situated in the same locality and bearing Custodian Nos. B/75, B/76 and B/77 were sold by auction to respondent No. 4, who was the highest bidder in respect thereof.

3. The P. T. Os. Were issued to him and the sale was confirmed by the issuance of P. T. Ds. On the 13th of November 1963. In these P.T.Ds. The corresponding C.S. Nos. For the properties purchased by respondent No. 4 were 555, 556, 557, 560, 561 and 562.

4. The corresponding C.S. Numbers of property bearing Custodian No. B/80 obtained by the petitioner were 554, 556 and 557, Since C.S. Nos. 556 and 557 appeared to be common to both, the petitioner applied in June 1964 to the Deputy Settlement Com--missioner to give him the C.S. Numbers which were comprised in the property obtained by him. This application was, however, rejected on the ground that P. T. D. Had already been issued to respondent No. 4.

5. The petitioner went up in appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner who, after inspection of the site, found that the contention of the petitioner was correct. He accordingly excluded C.S. Nos. 556 and 557 from the P.T.D. Issued to respondent No. 4.

6. Aggrieved by this order respondent No. 4 went up in revision before the Settlement Commissioner but failed. He then went up to the High Court invoking its writ jurisdiction. The High Court took the view that the Additional Settlement Commissioner had acted beyond his jurisdiction because after the issuance of the P.T.D. He had no power to modify the P.T.D. Particularly, since rules 6 and 7 of the Permanent Transfer Rules framed under the Scheme which gave such a power to the Settlement authorities had themselves been repealed by notifications issued on 2-3-64 and 27-12-64 respectively.

7. In support of this view that the Settlement authorities retained no jurisdiction over evacuee properties after the issuance of P. T. D_ reliance was placed on two decisions of this Court in the cases of Tufail Mohammad v. Mohammad Ziaullah Khan (PLD 1965 SC 269) and Anwar Hussain Sahni v. Sarfraz Ahmad (PLD 1971 SC 669).

8. The learned counsel appearing in support of this petition has sought to assail the correctness of the conclusion of the High Court, but we are of the opinion that after the repeal of Rules 6 and 7, there was no power left in the Settlement authorities to correct even the clerical mistakes in the P. T.

9. D. This is now well-settled and, therefore, we can find no ground upon which any just exception can be taken to the conclusion arrived at by the High Court.

10. This petition is, accordingly, without any merit and is dismissed. The petitioner can, however, if he is so advised, seek his remedy by suit in a competent Court and have it declared that C.S. Nos. 556 and 557 really appertain to property bearing Custodian No. B/80 which has been transferred to him under the agreement of association by the Settlement Department.