1987 PLP 705 (SCMR)

Ch. Muhammad Hasan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and

2. Jari Ullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 3 to

6. Date of hearing: 2nd February, 1987. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order, dated 21‑1‑1986 of the Lahore High Court dismissing the Constitutional petition of the petitioners from the order of the Settlement authorities.

2. The petitioners' father Ali Haider Shah was in occupation of an evacuee Ihata measuring 4 Kanals and 4 Marlas in old Nankana Sahib of District Sheikhupura. When the settlement operations started he alone submitted an N.C.H. Form. According to the petitioners who are his sons he alone was held entitled to the transfer of this Ihata but the transfer was not made in his favour for the reason that there was some doubt whether the Ihata in question was a trust property or not. The original file has since been lost and it is not clear on what date the order with regard to his entitlement was made. However, that may be, subsequently, the property was found to be non‑evacuee. An order of assessment was made on 28‑2‑1974 and a transfer order was issued on 26‑6‑1974. In the schedule attached to the transfer order against the entry 'Extent or right/interest transferred' it was stated only 2 Kanals 2 Marlas were being transferred to Abdul Rashid whereas the remaining area was being given to others in equal shares. On the same day another transfer order in favour of respondents Nos. 3 to 6 was issued. In the transfer order against a similar entry in the schedule attached to the transfer order the words 'Khasra No. 180 old N.N.S. measuring about 2 Kanals' were recorded.

3. The petitioners challenged the legality of the transfer order issued in favour of respondents Nos. 3 to 6 on the ground that as the whole Ihata stood transferred to Ali Haider Shah the same could not be again transferred to respondents Nos. 3 to

6. The High Court found no merit in this contention and dismissed the constitutional petition.

4. As already noticed the original file has been lost. However, from the schedule attached to the transfer order issued in favour of. the petitioners it is quite clear that out of 4 Kanals and 4 Marlas anI area measuring 2 Kanals and 2 Marlas only had been transferred to the petitioners. It is, therefore, not right on their part to contend that the whole of the Ihata had been transferred to them. We find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. M. I. /A‑8/S???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.