1975 PLP 400 (SCMR)

Mian Nazir Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rang: Maqbool Ahmad Kadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of haring : 28th March 1975. MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, J.‑The dispute in this case relates to the‑_ transfer of a double‑storeyed house. The petitioner a non‑claimant displaced person claims to be in possession of the ground‑floor and a room, a kitchen and a bath roan ‑ on the first‑floor. In the first instance being held as indivisible, the entire premises was transferred by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in favour of the petitioner, vide order dated 4‑12‑1960. A grossly belated appeal filed by the respondent, who is a local, was. dismissed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, vide order dated 24‑10‑1972. However, vide his order dated 22‑11‑1972, allowing the respondents' revision, the Settlement Commissioner remanded the case for fresh decision. In the second round the D. S. C. divided the premises horizontally the two portions having independent access. Having consisten tly failed before the Settlement Authority as also having unsuccessfully invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, the petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order, dated 19‑9‑1974 whereby his writ petition was, dismissed.

2. In support of the petition, learned counsel contends before us that the respondent had not claimed the room in the first‑floor which was in possession of the petitioner and as such it should not have been transferred to him. It is submitted that even before the Settlement Authorities the respondent had impliedly surrendered his right to the transfer of the disputed room and kitchen.

3. Having been taken through the entire gamut of litigation, perusing the orders passed at different levels including the impugned order of the High Court, we are fully satisfied that it was a substantially just decision of unchallengeable validity. The law gives full power to the Settlement Commissioner or his delegatee to declare a premises as divisible. The' premises in question comprising two self‑contained portions with independent A, access was rightly held to be divisible an aspect which is not open to question. If the respondent to whom the entire first floor has been transferred! wanted to surrender the disputed portion, he would not have been a party to this protracted litigation and in fact there is nothing to stand in the way of a compromise between the parties. Learned counsel has not been able to urge any legal ground in support of the petition for leave to appeal. AIR, divisible premises has been equitably apportioned between the two occupants, one being a non‑claimant and the other a local. No fault can be found with the order of the High Court, which is substantially just and proper. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed