1975 PLP (2) (SCMR)

‑‑ Sched., Part II‑Transfer of evacuee shop‑Concurrent findings of fact‑Additional Settlement Commissioner and Settlement Commis sioner concurrently finding shop to be not one sold; to petitioner but a separate shop‑Question, held, concluded by concurrent findings of fact arrived at by tribunals having jurisdiction and not; open to challenge. S. M. Abbas, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners: Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 8th March 1975. MUHAMMAD GUL, J.‑On 19‑11‑1966 evacuee shop bearing No. D/384~ situate in Pano Akil, District Sukkur; was sold at public auction to the, petitioners herein for Rs. 1,200 against reserve price of Rs. 1,

800. The auction was later confirmed and on payment of full price, P. T. D. was also issued to them on 22‑1‑1962. One Syed Akbar Ali Shah, a local, since deceased and predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents 3 to 7 herein, was in occupation of the Ishop. The petitioners gave him a notice informing, him of the transfer of the shop in their favour and demanding rent from him. @ Rs. 40 per mensem. On 19‑2‑1968, Akbar Ali Shah filed L. S. form for the transfer of the room attached to the shop transferred to the petitioners, on the ground that: it was a separate shop. The D. S. C. after spot inspection vide order dated 30‑6‑1969 found that the room for which Akbar Ali Shah had filed L. S. form was an integral part of the shop sold to the petitioners. Accord ingly, the L. S. form filed by Akbar Ali Shah was rejected. On appeal by Akbar Ali Shah, the Additional Settlement Commissioner after examination, of the record and inspection of the spot, came to a contrary conclusion. By order dated 22‑5‑1971, he found that the shop sold by auction to the petitioners was D‑384/2 and that there was a separate tenement D‑384/1 indicated as G‑1 which was also small shop and further that what was really auctioned to the petitioner was D‑384/2 which was G‑2, and that G‑1 was still available for transfer. On this finding, the Additional Settle ment Commissioner remitted the case to the D. S. C. to consider the L. S. form in respect of shop G‑

1. Against the above order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, the petitioners filed a revision which= was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner on 5‑2‑1972 and confirmed: the finding of the Additional Settlement Commissioner on the additional ground that the reserve price of both the shops put together was much. higher than Rs. 1,800 which was the reserve price, for D‑384/2 only. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioners filed a writ petition No. 167 at 1972 which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court at Karachi on 20‑6‑1974 on the short ground that the question '' whether what was sold by‑ public auction to the petitioners was the main' shop bearing No. D‑384/2 or the adjacent room G‑1 and G‑3 was essentially a question of fact, which stood concluded by the concurrent findings of the, Additional Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner. The petitioners now seek leave to appeal against the above judgment of the High Court. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length we consider that the case was rightly decided by the High Court on the basis of finding of fact reached by the Settlement Commissioner and the Additional Settlement Commissioner on a question which fell within their jurisdiction. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.