1. ' DORAB PATEL, J.-The dispute in this petition for leave relates to a katcha shop in a Chak Ramdas, Tehsil Bhalwal. This Chak is a third category rural area, and as this katcha shop was of less than Rs, 10,000 in value and was originally evacuee property, it had to be transferred, in the events that happened, under Settlement Scheme No, VII, and according to Major Ishaque, the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners one Muhammad Nazir had been in possession of this shop for many years but had been ejected m May 1961 by the local Tehsildar who purported to exercise his powers under section 7(2)(h) of the Rehabilitation Act. Further, according to the learned counsel, this order of the Tehsildar was illegal because the shop had passed out the compensation pool. Be that as it may as it was transferred to the second respondent in this petition, it is sufficient to state here that Muhammad Nazir had challenged the transfer in a suit in the Court of the Administrative Civil Judge, Sargodha. As this suit was decreed against the second respondent by the learned Administrative Civil Judge on 10-1-1975, the second respondent had filed an appeal in the District Court which was allowed by the learned District Judge on 13-12-1977. And the petitioners, who had meanwhile succeeded to the interest of Muhammad Nazir, filed a Revision against the order of District Judge in the Lahore High Court, but as this Revision was dismissed in limine on 9-1-78, they have filed this petition for leave.
2. ' It appears to have been common ground between the petitioners and the second respondent that their respective claims to the shop had to be decided in accordance with the provisions of Settlement Scheme No, VII which was promulgated in 1961 and Major Ishaque's submission was that the effect of paragraph 4 of Chapter 5 of the Scheme was that the shop stood transferred to the person occupying it on 1-1-1961, and as admittedly Muhammad Nazir, the predecessorin- interest of the petitioners, was in occupation of the shop on 1-1-1961, learned counsel submitted that the shop stood transferred to Muhammad Nazir on 1-1-1961, therefore it had passed out of the compensation pool, and therefore the Tehsildar's order evicting Muhammad Nazir and the orders transferring the shop to the second respondent were illegal and void ab initio. In rejecting this contention the learned Judge, who dismissed the Revision of the petitioners in limine, observed that he could not agree with the view that target date for the purpose of transfer under Settlement Scheme No, VII was 1-1-1961 and the learned Judge agreed with the view of the learned District Judge that the relevant date was 7-8-1961 which was the date when the Settlement Scheme No, VII was enforced.
3. Major Ishaque submitted an elaborate argument to show that the view taken by the first appellate Court and by the Lahore High Court about the date on which the shop stood transferred under Settlement Scheme No, VII was not correct, and as his argument receives support from a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court reported in Umar Din and others v. Government of West Pakistan and others (1) it is clear that there is a cleavage of opinion in the Lahore High Cour A about the date on which rural building stood transferred to occupants under Chapter V of Settlement Scheme No, VII. It is necessary to resolve this cleavage of opinion that we would grant leave.
4. ' Security in the sum of Rs, 1,000. The appeal to be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to file documents and meanwhile the possession of the petitioners will not be disturbed.
(1) PLD 1969 Lah. 743