1975 PLP 182 (SCMR)

SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑--The petitioner is a claimant and he has been aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Commissioner, dated the 25th of October, 1965, dividing the evacuee house in dispute into three portions and transferring each portion ‑to each of the three claimants already in his occupation. In dividing the house the principle followed by the Settlement Commissioner evidently was to benefit the largest number of claimants and to avoid throwing out of the house any claimant. All the three claimants appeared to have been in possession of their respective portions for a con siderable number of years. The petitioner was in possession of a portion on the ground floor, claimant Abdul Shakoor respondent was in possession of a room and a part of the verandah on the same floor, while another claimant Nizam Din respondent was in possession of the entire first floor and a room and some of the portion of the ground floor. The petitioner's writ petition challenging the validity of the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated the 25th of October, 1965, was rightly dismissed on the grounds that the house having already been divided by the Settlement Commissioner (he was acting as a Chief Settlement Commissioner) into three portion, each one of them became a separate house and the petitioner was therefore not entitled to more than one house and the propriety of the division could not be challenged in the writ jurisdiction. The High Court also four that the division was a just and proper one in the circumstances of the case. We agree with this view of the High Court, and reject similar contentions repeated before us. It has been contended further that the respondent Abdul Shakoor had made a belated application for transfer and, therefore, he should not have been transferred any portion of the house. The contention has no force. Under Paragraph 8 of settlement Scheme No. 1 it was the duty of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to consider the claims of all other persons "who may have applied" for transfer. This required consideration of the claim of the said respondent, who might have applied and did not apply till then. Furthermore in the case of Altaf Hussain etc. v. Chief Settlement Com 1nissioner (P L D 1965 S C 68), this Court has held that the Chief Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction to refuse to accept tile form far transfer of the property although the time fixed for filing it had expired. It was next sought to be contended that Abdul Shakoor had already been allotted a house and he could not be given another house. This point was never raised before the High Court and could not, therefore, be permitted to be raised for the first time in this Court. We find no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court, and this petition is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused.