1980 PLP 571 (SCMR)

‑‑ S. 2(4) & Sched., Part I ‑ Dispute over partition of bungalow ‑ Orders of Settlement Authorities showing bungalow in dispute having been partitioned with consent of all occupants as a result of which outhouses coming to share of respondents and parties raising walls around their respective portions‑Such facts not disputed by petitioner‑Con tentions urged against impugned judgment of High Court, held, untenable. Sh. Abdul Manan, Advocate and Salim Ahmad Malik, Advocate‑on -Record for Petitioners. Mahmood Akhtar, Advocate and Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing : 15th December 1979. G. SAFDAR SHAH, J.‑The dispute in this case relates to the outhouses of Bungalow No. SW‑108‑R‑4, situate on Rashid Road, Lahore. On 1‑1‑1960, the Assistant Settlement Commissioner with powers of Deputy Settle ment Commissioner, on the mutual consent of the parties herein, divided the said bungalow in three portions with the result that the outhouses in question were transferred to the respondents. Against the said order, the petitioners went in appeal before the Additional Settlement Commis sioner, who however, rejected the same vide order, dated 8‑6‑1960 as barred by time, but even so went into the merits of the case and held that the out houses were not separate entity as they formed part of the bungalow itself. The petitioners challenged the said order in revision before the Settle ment Commissioner, who vide his order dated 12‑12‑1960, allowed the same and consequently transferred the outhouses in favour of the petitioners. Against the said order respondents went in second revision before the Chief Settlement Commissioner but the same was dismissed, vide his order dated 2‑6‑1962. Finally, the respondents filed in the High Court Writ Petition No. 1112‑R~1962, which was allowed by order dated 10‑12‑1965 mainly on the ground that the Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction to condone the delay in favour of the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved of the said order, the petitioners challenged the same before the L. P. A. Bench, but on 1 5‑3‑1973 they withdrew their appeal, and thereafter pursued their case before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, to whom the case had been remanded by the High Court, who in the end held in favour of the petitioners. The respondents were evidently aggrieved of the said order and consequently challenged the same through Writ Petition No. 561‑R/1973 in the High Court which was allowed by the impugned judgment. In seeking leave to appeal, Ch A Manan, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the outhouses of the bungalow in dispute could by no recknoning be described as separate entity, and con sequently the High Court was in error to hold otherwise. There is no force in this contention. A perusal of the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, the Additional Settlement Commissioner, as well as the Settlement Commissioner would show that the said bungalow had been partitioned with the consent of all the occupants as a result of which partition, the outhouses came to the share of the respondents. Not only this but after the said partition, the parties herein had raised walls around their respective portions, and that was why the High Court held that "As these are the personal civil rights of the parties it was well within their own power to challenge or not to challenge it or to agree to a particular mode of division amongst them". The learned counsel for the petitioners has not disputed these facts, therefore, the contentions urged by him against the impugned judgment of the High Court are evidently untenable. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.