1. S. A. RAHMAN, J.-The petitioner was in possession of a shop in a composite property and this was transferred to him by the Settlement authorities. He wanted another portion of the premises not in his possession, to be transferred to him instead of Abdul Aziz, respondent. This prayer was not acceded to by the Settle--ment authorities in their final order, and the petitioner sought redress against that order in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. He was not successful and seeks special leave to appeal.
2. The order passed by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner in final revision, divided the property into three independent units and transferred them to the persons in posses--sion. The respondent Abdul Aziz, though a local, was held entitled to transfer of one portion which was declared an indepen--dent house, as its valuation was less than Rs. 10,000. This was an order within the jurisdiction of the Settlement and Rehabilita--tion Commissioner's powers and no exception could have been taken to it in writ jurisdiction. After hearing Mr. Muhammad Idrees, in support of the petition, we are not persuaded that any case for interference with the departmental authorities order has been made out.
3. The petition is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.