1969 PLP 930 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : I1th October 1967. MUHAMMAD YAQAB ALI, J.‑This is an application for special leave to appeal from the order of the High Court declining to interfere with the orders of the Settlement authorities dividing the house in dispute in two parts and transferring it to the parties in accordance with their respective possession. As held in a series of cases the High Court does not have the jurisdiction to interfere with such matters under Article 98 of the Consti tution, but it is urged that question of jurisdiction is involved in the case. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner divided the house and transferred the ground floor to Ranjha, respondent, and the first floor to Faqir Mohammad, petitioner. The latter filed an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner contending that the house was indivisible and as he was in prior possession the whole house should be transferred to him. The first plea prevailed with the appellate authority, but he was not satisfied as to which of the parties was in prior possession. He accord ingly remitted the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for holding a fresh inquiry as to the date of the possession of the parties and dispose of the house accordingly. Dissatisfied with the order of remand Ranjha filed a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner maintaining that the house consisted of two independent residential units and was rightly transferred by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to the parties in accordance with their respective possession. In the meantime another Deputy Settlement Commissioner in pursuance to the order of remand by the Additional Settle ment Commissioner found that the house was indivisible and that Faqir Muhammad, petitioner, was in prior possession. He consequently transferred the whole house to Faqir Muhammad. Instead of filing an appeal from this order Ranjha filed a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner which was heard along with his earlier revision petition and disposed of by the impugned order. The Settlement Commis sioner held that the house consisted of two independent residential units and reversing the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the fresh order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner passed on remand restored the original order of transfer in favour of both the parties. Faqir Muhammad who laid claim to the whole house there upon filed a writ petition in the High Court among others on the ground that since Ranjha had not filed an appeal from the order of transfer in his favour passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on remand the second revision petition preferred by him directly to the Settlement Commissioner was legally incompetent. The contention was overruled by a learned Single Judge for in view of the order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner in the appeal by Faqir Muhammad it would have been futile to prefer a second appeal before him on the question of divisibility of the house. The writ petition was, accordingly, dismissed and an appeal preferred by the petitioner from that order dismissed by the Letters Patent Bench in limine. The facts set out above clearly make out, that the omissiont to file an appeal from the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner made on remand did not preclude the respondent from preferring a revision petition directly to the Settlement Commissioner. The view adopted by the High Court was, therefore, right. But even if the second revision p0tition filed by the respondent was incompetent the Settlement Commissioner who was already seized with the question of divisibility or the house could make the same order in the first revision petition and cancel the order for the transfer of the whole of the house in favour of the petitioner. The petition for leave to appeal is thus devoid of force and we dismiss it. Leave refused.