' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.-The petitioners seek special leave to appeal against the order of the High Court of Sind, Karachi, dated 27th of September, 1978, by which Constitutional Petition No, 823 of 1973 was dismissed.
' Ghaus alias Ghulam Muhammad, the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners 1 to. 6, his son Ali Sher and Umar Din occupied an evacuee house at Matli in 1948 and, thereafter an allotment order was issued in favour of these occupants on 8th February, 1954, in which the number of the house was shown as B-1339 and its evacuee owner as Tillu Mal. It is the case of the petitioners that they re- constructed the house and thereafter, on the commencement of the settlement operations, submitted a 'P' Form for its transfer on 7th March, 1960. They were transferred this house whereafter they paid its full price and a P. T.
0. Dated 25th November. 1962, was issued followed by a P. T. D. Dated 2nd March, 1964. In both these documents the number of the house was shown as B-1339. At about the transfer of this house building site, house bearing No, B-1351, in the occupation of one Ramzan, was transferred to respondent No, 4 on 31st January, 1960, under the earmarking scheme and a P. T.
0. Was issued in his favour on 3rd February, 1960. After the payment of its full price on 15th September. 1960, a P. T. D. Was issued to him on 15th October, 1963. Thereafter, in the year 1965-66, respondent No, 4 demanded rent from Ghaus as, apparently the house transferred to him bore No, B-1351. Ghaus, thereupon. Sought clarification from the Deputy Settlement Commissioner who by order dated 23rd of April, 1966, held that the houses were separate without stating further as to what was the number of the house transferred to him. Ghaus next submitted another application to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner seeking correction of the house number but the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, by order dated 4th March, 1969, refused to interfere with the order passed by his predecessor. Against this order Ghaus went in appeal to the Additional Settlement Commissioner who by order dated 12th April, 1969, remanded the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for a decision afresh after inspecting the houses.
' On remand the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, by order dated 8th October, 1969, allowed the correction which order was again disturbed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner who remanded the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by order dated 3rd June, 1971. On remand the Deputy Settlement Commissioner held that Ghaus had submitted a 'P' Form with an incorrect City Survery Number and, therefore, his Form was not maintainable. He further maintained the transfer of the house bearing No, B-1351 in favour of respondent No,
4. Against this order, Ghaus preferred an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner but it was dismissed on the ground that prior to the submission of `P' Form by Ghaus the lot stood drawn in favour of respondent No, 4 under the earmarking scheme and, therefore, there was no scope of any correction of the house number.
' Ghaus challenged this order in revision before the Settlement Commissioner who took the same view and dismissed the revision by order dated 7th June, 1973. Lastly, Ghaus challenged these orders in the aforementioned constitutional petition but did not succeed as the High Court also took the same view..
In seeking leave to appeal the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it was a simple case of the correction of the number of the house as the building site was in the occupation of Ghaus and the house that was transferred to respondent No, 4 was the one which was in t occupation of Ramzan. We are not impressed by this contention for it is obvious from the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 7th June, 1973, that the two houses belonged to two different evacuee owners and that the house in the occupation of deceased Ghaus was the one bearing No, 8-1351 which was earlier transferred to respondent No, 4 under the earmarking scheme and, therefore, it was not a case of a correction of mistake of the house number. Further, as the house allotted to Ghaus was one which belonged to Tillu Mal bearing No, 1339 which was transferred to him pursuant to the number given by him, he could not subsequently lay a claim to the house belonging to a different evacuee owner with a different house number on the premise that the house number was incorrectly stated. Therefore, on this legal plane the orders of the settlement authorities and the High Court were correct and we see no justification to disturb them.
' Accordingly, the petition has no substance and is hereby dismissed.