1968 PLP 1271 (SCMR)

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 2nd February 1968, in Review Application No. 45 of 1967/in Letters Patent Appeal No. 719 of 1966). -- Sch., Part I‑Divisibility of house‑High Court, held, justified in not interfering with decision of Settlement authori ties on question. JUDGMENT ABDUS SATTAR, J.‑The petitioner Bashir Ahmad Waien, Mst. Shah Begum, respondent No. 3 and Mst. Azim Bibi who are in possession of bungalow No. S‑60.8.59, Mozang Road, Lahore, submitted C. H. Form in respect of the same. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner after examining the claims of the three parties gave the annexe to the house to Mst. Azim Bibi who was in occupation and claimed it. The main house was found to be divisible but was not divided as according to him it would not be advisable. The whole house was given to the petitioner. An appeal filed to .the Additional Settlement Com missioner by Mst. Shah Begum was rejected though his finding was that the parties accepted the position that the house stores divided and are in possession of the petitioner and Syed Ahmad Saeed Kirmani, son of Mst. Shah Begum. In the revision application filed against this decision the Settlement Commis sioner has found that the house in dispute is a big one and it has two entrances leading to different portions with a permanent partition wall between them. He has further found that the parties have been living comfortably in their respective portions since 1955. He therefore ordered that the two portions be trans ferred to the two claimants. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the decision of the Settlement Commissioner. The contentions raised before the learned Single Judge who heard the writ petition were that Mst. Shah Begum had no entitlement to the portion transferred to her as she was not herself in possession of the same and that the house was wrongly divided. The learned Judge rejected both the contentions. He found that the question whether Mst. Shah Begum was in possession was a question of fact which could not be gone into in a writ petition in view of the finding of the Settlement Commissioner. Alternatively it was said that even if she was not herself in possession she could claim benefit of the possession of her son. With regard to the second contention it was held that the Settlement Commissioner had the power of dividing the house and by ordering transfer of the two portions which stood divided he had exercised that power and therefore there was no reason for interference with this order. This decision was upheld by a Division Bench of the High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the house has been wrongly divided by the Settlement Commissioner. We agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the Settlement Authorities had the right to divide the house and in the facts and the circumstances of this case it was correctly exercised. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.