1970 PLP 590 (SCMR)

WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.‑The dispute between the parties is in respect of bungalow No. 36, Jail Road, Lahore. The petitioner, who is in possession of a portion of the said bungalow, applied for its transfer. Respondent No. 1, Mr. E. W. Randle, also applied for its transfer on N. C. H. Form and for the benefit of the School known as "Randle Primary School". On the 11th April 1960, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred the entire bungalow to the petitioner. The appeal of respondent No. 1 against this order was dismissed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on the 25th July 1960. The matter was then taken by respondent No. 1 in revision before the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore, who by order dated the 19th January 1963, accepted the revision and remanded the case to the Deputy "Set Commissioner, Lahore, for decision of the entitlement of the parties. This order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 61 3, R of 1963, which was dismissed by the High Court of Pakistan on the 11th November 1964. The petitioner's petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 27 of 1967 was dismissed on the 7th May 1965. The result was that the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated the 19th January 1963 remained in the field. After this first round of litigation, the matter came up before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, who by order dated the 9th June 1965, made a report to the Additional Settlement Commis sioner expressing the view that the bungalow is divisible and recommended that the portion claimed by respondent No. 1 be transferred to him as a School under the Central Government Press Note dated the 3rd May 1960. This transfer could only be made by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner did not accept this report and by order dated the 16th March 1966, came to the conclusion that as respondent No. 1 had not submitted his application in response to the Press Note dated the 3rd May 1960, he was not entitled to the transfer of the property in dispute on that basis. With this observation, the matter was again sent back to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for disposal of the dispute between the parties in the `light of the order of the Settlement Commissioner. This order was challenged by respondent No. 1 before the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore, who by order dated the 18th January 1969, accepted the revision and found respon dent No. 1 entitled to the transfer of a portion of the property in dispute as a School and finally ordered as under;

"Mr. Anwarul Haq is eligible for the transfer of the only one half portion of the bungalow on his C. H. Form while Mr. E. W. Randle is found entitled to the transfer of one half portion of the bungalow as school." The petitioner challenged this order in Writ Petition No. 639/R of ‑1969, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of West Pakistan High Court on the 8th July 1969, on the ground that as the property is held divisible, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the transfer of the other portion to respondent No.

1. Letters. Patent. Appeal No. 355 of .19,69, filed against this order was dismissed in, limine by a Division Bench, of the West Pakistan High Court, Lahore on the 24th. October 1969. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order. In support of the petition; Mr: Munir Ahmad, learned counsel for Me petitioner has contended that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner did not divide the property, in' dispute nor was it held divisible 'by the Additional Settlement Commissioner In these circumstances the Settlement Commissioner was not comp tempt to divide the property in dispute The learned counsel further contended that respondent No. 1 is a local and the property in dispute could not be transferred to, him.. The conten tion of the learned counsel has not impressed us. The mere fact that no final decision was given by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner is no ground to hold that the Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction to consider the question of the divisibility of the property in dispute. In our opinion, the Settlement Commissioner was fully competent to go into this question. The learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any illegality in holding the property as divisible. Since the property has been held to be divisible, the petitioner has no right to challenge the transfer of the other portion of the property to any other party. The contention of the learned counsel that respondent No. 1 is a local is also negatived by the decision of the Settlement authorities. Respondent No. 1 has been held to be non‑claimant displaced person. This being finding of fact cannot be agitated before this Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is quite clear that the portion of the property in dispute has been transferred to respondent No. 1 as School. His learned counsel, Mr. Gul Muhammad, has given an undertaking that the property in dispute will continue to be used as a School and respondent No. 1 will not claim any personal right in it. In view of this there is no force in the petition which is dismissed. Petition dismissed.