1. DORAB PATEL, AGTG. C. J.-The dispute in this petition for leave relates to a property in Bohri Bazar, Karachi which became evacuee property on the migration of its owner to India. The property consists of a ground floor and two stores and even, according to Mr. Ali Akbar there were only two rooms in the ground floor which were transferred by the Settle--ment Department to other persons as shops. There were two flats on the first floor and one on the second floor. One of the flats on the first floor was transferred to the petitioner, whilst the other fiat as well as the flat on the second floor was transferred to the third respondent. Both the petitioner and the third respondent obtained P. T.
2. Os for the "house" transferred to them in 1960 and 1961 and Mr. Ali Akbar relied on the fact that according to the P. T. O. Of the petitioner what was transferred to him was flat No. 1/1 (the flat claimed by him in the first floor) and what was described in the P. T. O. As shop or room on the ground floor. We may pause to point out here that Mr. Ali Akbar was compelled to admit that this house or room had teen constructed by the petitioner long after partition without obtaining any permission from any authority for his illegal construction. Despite this the petitioner managed .To obtain a P. T. D. For flat No. 1/1 as well as this room or shop on the ground floor. The third respondent also obtained a P. T. D. For the two flats transferred to him which he sold later to respondents 4 and 5 (hereinafter called the said respondents).
3. There were thereafter disputes between the petitioner and the said respondents. And, for the purpose of this petition it is sufficient to state that there was a dispute between the said respondents and the petitioner about the room or shop constructed by him on the ground floor of the property. And, by his order dated 17-4-1975, the Settlement Commissioner (Sind) upheld the petitioner's claim to this disputed room or shop on the ground that the P. T. D. Issued in his favour had become final. This order was challenged in a writ petition by the said respondents in the Sind High Court and as the wit petition was allowed by a learned Judge of the High Court on 5-4-1140, the petitioner has filed this petition for leave.
4. Mr. Ali Akbar criticized the reasons given by the learned Judge for setting aside the Settlement Commissioner's order in the petitioner's favour. It is, however, unnecessary to examine these submissions, because even if they are assumed to be correct, the petitioner has no case whatever.
5. It is true that the petitioner---s claim is supported by the P. T. O. And P. T. D. In his favour, but there were continuous disputes between the petitioner and the third respondent, as well as with the said respondents, about their entitlement to the room or shop constructed illegally by the petition on the ground floor of the property. And by his order dated 10-6-1963, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had rejected the petitioner's claim on the very cogent ground that the room constructed by the petition had been illegally constructed by him and could not, therefore, be evacuee property by any stretch of imagination. This order was challenged in an appeal by the petitioner which was dismissed, by an Additional Settlement Commissioner on 28-3-1964. As the petitioner allowed this order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner to become final, he is debarred from advancing any claim whatever the room or shop constructed by him regardless of the fact that the, transfer documents erroneously sanctioned the transfer of the same to him. That is elementary, and we cannot under--stand how the Settlement Commissioner ignored the fact that the Additional Settlement Commissioner's order of 28-3-1964 had become final.
6. In order to overcome this difficulty, Mr. Ali Akbar advanced an ingenious argument. He stated that according to law, as understood when the Additional Settlement Commissioner had dismissed the petitioner's appeal on 28-3-1964 an unauthorised construction by a claimant was not a house within the meaning of section 2 of the Displaced Persons (Compensa--tion and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, but that according to the law later declared by this Court which was (long after the said order of 28-3-1964 had become final) such a construction was a house, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to re-agitate his claim. The pica is against the settled law and we have no hesitation whatever in rejecting it as frivolous.
7. The petition is without merit and is dismissed.