1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal is sought from the judgment dated 5-9-1974 of the Lahore High Court, whereby a writ petition arising out of a case relating to disposal of property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, was dismissed.
2. Muhammad Nasib, respondent No. 1, a displaced person, was to possession of a composite property which was being used for residential as well as commercial purposes. He applied for the transfer of the same, but later on made a statement that he would not seek the transfer of that part of the property which was described as shop. The shop was accordingly put to auction. The petitioner was successful bidder. The shop was trans--ferred to him. It is not denied that Muhammad Nasib respondent was in possession of the entire property including the shop, which is now the subject--matter of dispute. The petitioner claims to have served a notice on the said respondent under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, regarding the transfer of the shop to him, whereafter a dispute arose as to whether the shop transferred to the petitioner consisted of one or two rooms. The respondent's case was that it was a one-room shop while the petitioner asserted that it consisted of two rooms. The Settlement Authorities decided the controversy in favour of the petitioner. Muhammad Nasib filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was allowed on 18-6-1973, The case was remanded to the Settlement Commissioner deciding the matter after hearing the parties, as it was found that in the order then impugned before the High Court there was no application of mind. The Settlement Commissioner, after remand, passed an order on 2-11-1978, this time holding that the shop which was auctioned in favour of the petitioner consisted of one room only. The petitioner then challenged the sale order in the High Court through a writ petition which having been dismissed, he has sought leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel has vehemently contended that there is no difference between the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner in the earlier round, which was held to be without application of mind, and the order this time passed on 2-11-1973, which was impugned before the High Court in the second round because, as pointed out by him, the latter order also suffered from the same infirmity. Learned counsel has also contended that according to the finding of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in the first round, the entries in the survey register and the statement made by Muhammad Nasib respondent himself, the shop in question consisted of two rooms, therefore, there was no justification for the Settlement Commissioner to hold that it consisted of one room.
4. The first argument, as raised in this Court, was also raised before the learned Judge in the High Court. The same learned Judge has passed the earlier order. After noticing the arguments it has been held that the order of the Settlement Commissioner, which was impugned in the High Court, did not suffer from the infirmity of non-application of mind. There is no reason for us to differ on this issue.
5. Regarding the finding of fact by the Settlement Commissioner, no doubt it appears from the material relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the shop in question, at some stage, consisted of two rooms because two rooms of the house might have been used as shop, but there was enough material for the Settlement Commissioner to come to a finding that the shop which was put to auction and purchased by the petitioner consisted only of one room. There is a site plan on the record which shows that the shop in question consisted only of one triangular room. That room has been described as shop while the adjoining room claimed by the petitioner to be a part of the share instead of having been described as shop, has been described as a room.
6. Not only this, there are two doors connecting the said room with the other parts of the residential house occupied by the respondent. The site plan signed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. It appears that even if a room of the house might have been used, at some stage, for commercial purposes, at the relevant time it was not a part of the shop in dispute. Not this, it is mentioned in the judgment of the High Court passed on 18-6-1973 that the shop which was auctioned in favour of the petitioner was described in the list of auction as "triangular" (Takoni). This follows two things :(1) that the shop did not consist of more than one room and (2) that the said room is triangular and not square in form. The independent) room which is claimed by the petitioner to have constituted a part of the disputed shop, is admittedly square in form.
7. For all these reasons we find that the impugned judgment is unexcep--tionable. No justification has been made out for the grant of leave to appeal.
8. This petition accordingly is dismissed.