1980 PLP 978 (SCMR)

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑This petition far leave to appeal is directed against the order dated 24‑6‑1979 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissing the Writ Petition (W. P. No. 342‑R/73 filed by the petitioners. The petitioners claimed to be displaced persons, who are in occupation of House No. 665/B‑IV situated in Parnami Mohallah, Sahiwal City, but have either not been transferred any portion of the property or granted a much smaller portion of it than they desired. There have been two rounds of litigation and the first order in the Settlement Department was passed as long as 16‑12‑1959. Ultimately in the second round, according to the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 12‑3‑1973 which has not been interfered with by the High Court, petitioner No. I (Bashir Ahmad) .and petitioner No. 6 (Mst. Majidan widow of Tayyab Khan) have been transferred one room each which accommodation was in their respective possession whereas the petitioners Nos. 2 to 5, namely, Muhammad Hassan, Niaz Muhammad, Taj Muhammad and Mst. Hameeda (now represented by her heirs) have not been granted any part of the house, whereas the rest of the house has been transferred in favour of Bashir Ahmad son of Udmi, respondent No.

4. It has been found by the Settlement authorities that Muhammad Hassan and Mst. Hameeda, petitioners Nos. 2 and 5 respectively admittedly did not submit any transfer form Whereas Niat Muhammad, petitioner No. 3, Taj Muhammad, petitioner No. 4 were not in possession of any part of the property. Hence they have held that the afore mentioned four petitioners were not entitled to the transfer of any portion of the house in dispute. Bashir Ahmad, petitioner No. I and Mst. Majidan widow of Tayyab Khan were found to be in possession of one room each and were, therefore, entitled to the part of the house in their respective possessions and were accordingly transferred the said rooms in their favour. Mr. Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioners, criticised the orders of the Settlement Department but he could not establish to our satisfaction that the finding of the Settlement Authorities that Muhammad Hassan and Mst. Hameeda petitioners Nos. 2 and 5 had not submitted any form was baseless or that the finding that Niaz Muhammad and Taj Muhammad were not in possession of any part of the property was a finding that could not possibly be recorded by the authorities although they themselves had admitted that they were not in possession. His further submission that Bashir Ahmad, petitioner No. 1 and Mst. Majidan widow of Tayyab Khan, petitioner No. 6, had been given only an insignificant part of the house whereas Bashir Ahmad son of Udmi, respondent No. 4, had been given practically the whole house with the result that grave injustice had occurred, has also not impressed us. It is not denied that petitioners Nos. 11 and 6 were only in possession of one room each and, therefore, if the Settlement authorities have refused to transfer any more than what was in their possession was a matter which lay within their discretion. We, therefore, agree with the learned Judge in the High Court that this was not a fit case for interference in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction with the orders of the Settlement authorities. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.