1983 PLP 246 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 29th May, 1982. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑Noor Muhammad petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 3‑2‑1976, dismissing his writ petition in a settlement matter.

2. The facts leading to the petition are, briefly, that the house in question was earlier considered to be a single unit. and was occupied by Abdul Hakim, the predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents 4 to 7 as well as 13 other persons including Noor Muhammad petitioner. All of them applied for ‑transfer of the said property and submitted their NCH Forms and were transferred the property. But subsequently Noor Muhammad (petitioner herein as well as the other transferees, except one Muhammad Bakhsh entered into an agreement of association with Abdul Hakim, surrendering all their rights in his favour (i.e. in favour of the predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents 4 to 7.

3. The case, from then on, had a chequered history and ultimately also went up to the High Court through 2 separate writ petitions. The net result of the litigation was that the entire property was permitted to remain with the aforesaid Abdul Hakim, as all other transferees (except one Muhammad Bakhsh) bad surrendered their rights through an agreement. Subsequently, in 1967,Noor Muhammad filed an NCH Form for the transfer of a portion in the house in question on the ground that, in fact, the same consisted of two independent units having separate numbers i.e., Nos. 13 and

14. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, trans ferred the said portion (i.e. No. 14) to Noor Muhammad by order dated 10‑9‑1967. Abdul Hakim and Abdul Ghani filed an appeal against this order before the Settlement Commissioner who set aside the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and remanded the case to him for fresh decision. After making a detailed inquiry in the matter the Deputy Settlement Commissioner held that the property consisted of two separate units but in view of the decision of the High Court, dated 4‑11‑1965, whereby it was held that Abdul Hakim was entitled to the entire property because the other transferees, except one, had surrendered‑ their rights in his favour through an agreement held that the same was no longer available for transfer. An appeal was filed against this order which was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner. The petitioner, thereupon, filed a writ petition which was dismissed in limine by the impugned order (at page 14 of the paper book). Hence the present petition.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and gone through the various orders mentioned above. We are incline to agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Chamber namely, that the mere fact that the properties in question constituted two different units does not help the petitioner at this stage as he had earlier surrendered his right in favour of Abdul Hakim and as such he has no locus stand! to urge that the transfer in favour of Abdul Hakim was invalid. The petition, is, therefore, dismissed as being without any merit. Petition dismissed.