1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This petition for leave to appeal is by the Lyllpur Ex-Servicemen Goods Transport Society Ltd., Lyallpur (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-Society) which feels aggrieved by a decision of the Lahore High Court allowing the transfer to it of only 4 kanals of land out of the property bearing No, 35 Ward No,
10. Lyallpur measuring 8 kanals and of transferring the remaining 4 kanals in favour of respondent No, 1, Anwar Ahmad Khan.
2. ' The facts which form the background are that the property in question was an open plot with a small house on the north-west and the south-west corners of the property. The Settlement authorities considering that no one had applied for the transfer of the said house placed it for disposal through "Earmarking" under Scheme V of the Settlement Scheme. Lots were drawn and respondent No, 1, Anwar Ahmad Khan, successfully drew the lot and was accordingly transferred the house on 13-2-1959.
3. ' The petitioner's Society felt dissatisfied as according to it, it was in possession of the plot and had filed a plot-form for its transfer and was consequently entitled to its transfer and submitted that in any case the property could not have been disposed of through earmarking, without disposal of its transfer form. The above plea of the petitioner-Society was accepted by the Additional Settlement Commissioner in his order dated 23-12-1963 who found that the petitioner-society was entitled to the transfer of the entire plot except 8 Marlas of land, on which the house was located and which stood transferred in favour of respondent No, 1.
4. ' Both the parties were dissatisfied with the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The petitioner-Society claimed that it was entitled to the transfer of the entire plot while the respondent No, 1 claimed that as no transfer form had at all been filed by the petitioner-Society, it was, therefore, not entitled to the transfer of any portion of the plot. Both the parties, therefore, filed revision petitions before the Settlement Commissioner. The learned Settlement Commissioner accepted the revision petition of respondent No, 1 holding that as it was not established that the petitioner-Society had filed any form for the transfer of the plot ; hence it was not entitled to the transfer of any portion of the plot. He further held that respondent No, 1 was not entitled to the transfer of the entire area but only entitled to the transfer of the house along with three times the plinth area thereof. As the area covered by the plinth of the house was found by the learned - Settlement Commissioner to be one kanal he after allowing three kanals as excess area as contemplated by section 2(4) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act held the respondent entitled to the transfer of 4 kanals in all. The remaining 4 kanals were placed at the disposal of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for transfer in accordance with law. On this view of the case the revision petition of the petitioner-Society was naturaly dismissed.
5. ' Two writ petitions were filed in the Lahore High Court to challenge the above decision ; one by the petitioner-Society (W. P. No, 449-R of 1968) disputing the findings of the learned Settlement Commissioner that it had not filed any form and claiming transfer of the entire plot, and the other by respondent No, 1 (W. P. No, 272-R/68) claiming the transfer of the entire plot and not merely 4 kanals out of it. Both the writ petitions were heard together by a learned Judge of the High Court and disposed of by an elaborate and well-considered order.
6. ' The learned Judge after calling for the records and relevant registers from the Settlement Department came to the conclusion that the petitioners-Society had indeed filed a plot form. He further held that the petitioner Society was in possession of it and had raised some constructions on the plot and therefore it was entitled to the transfer of the plot but he agreed with the learned Settlement Commissioner that the building site or plot extended only to 4 Kanals and the remaining 4 kanals formed part of the house which was liable to go to the transferee of the house located in the north-west corner of the property. Consequently, the writ petition of the respondent claiming transfer of the entire plot was dismissed but that of the petitioner-Society was accepted to the extent that the portion held to form a part of the building site, namely, 4 kanals which was reserved by the Settlement Commissioner for disposal by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was transferred to the petitioner-Society.
7. ' The petitioner-Society not feeling satisfied even with this order has, therefore, filed this petition for leave to appeal.
8. ' Raja Mohammad Anwar, learned counsel for the petitioner-Society has been heard in support of this petition while Mr. Jariullah Khan, Advocate, heard on behalf of the Caveator. After we had pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner-Society that the finding of fact recorded by the Settlement Commissioner was a very fair and equitable determination, namely, that the property in question could be treated as consisting of two parts ; one liable to be transferred as a building site and the other liable to be transferred as a house, with which the High Court had also concurred and with which we were also not inclined to interfere, he very properly did not press his petition any further. In any case both the parties having been justly accommodated he could not have asked for reversal of such an equitable order with any degree of success.
9. ' This petition, therefore, must fail and dismissed hereby. 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.