ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.-The dispute relates to a house bearing property No S. W. III-87-S-3, Sanda Road, Lahore. Major Z. A. Ismail filed LH form, his were Begum Hamayun Zulfiqar Ismail filed LH Form and her brother Mazhar Iqbal Hussain filed NCH form. Mst. Hamida Saadat Ali Khan respondent No. 1 filed CH form.
Major Z. A., Ismail appeared before the Assistant Settlement Commissioner/Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 16-10-1959 and said that the house may be transferred in favour of his brother-in-law. The Assistant Settlement Commissioner/ Deputy Settlement Commissioner found the house to be indivisible and the claimant Mst, Hamida Saadat Ali Khan respondent No. 1, better entitled to the transfer. Of the house. He ordered accordingly vide order dated 21-10-1959. Begum Hamayun Zulfiqar Ismail then filed NCH form on 3-11-1959.
She and her, brother filed an appeal against the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, which was found to be barred by 105 days and dismissed by the learned Settlement Commissioner on 27-2-1960. Begum Hamayun Zulfiqar Ismail and her brother then filed a revision petition. In order to undercut the claimant transferee, machinery was set in motion to get the claim of the respondent Begum Hamida Saadat Ali Khan cancelled but the Claims Commissioner, ride order dated 11-4-1964 dismissed the proceedings: The order was challenged through Writ Petition which, too was dismissed. The revision petition filed by Begum Humayun Zulfiqar Ismail and her brother was taken up by the learned Settlement Commissioner who held that "I have carefully considered all the aspects of the case and am of the opinion that according to the law applicable, the house is one unit and had been correctly declared as indivisible by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner as well as by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The arguments of the, learned counsel for the petitioners have no force and the fact remains,, that the present contest is between a claimant displaced person and a local whose status had not been determined even as a non---claimant displaced person. In this view of the matter, the orders of the lower Courts are maintained and the revision petition is hereby dismissed". This is vide order dated 30-11-1968. This order was challenged through a Constitutional petition bearing. W. P. No. 730/R/1979.
Relying upon the judgment of the learned Supreme Court of Pakistan in Muhammad Yusuf v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner etc. (PLD 1968 SC 101) to the effect that "the terms in which the power in question conferred by the first proviso to section 2 (4) are stated do not allow interference by the Courts, in exercise of their power under Article 98 of the Constitution with any decision by the Settlement Authorities as to the divisibility or otherwise of a house", the learned Single Judge held that "once a property is held to be indivisible, the contentions with regard to non-determination of status or non-consideration of the forms pale into insignificance because the respondent is admittedly a claimant in possession and has a preferable right to transfer of the property as compared with the petitioners, who are locals or at best non-claimants". The writ petition was accordingly, dismissed in limine, vide order dated 6-8-1969. Hence, the L. P. A.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the house was divisible and the finding of the Settlement authorities to the contrary was erroneous and liable to be set aside in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction. He has referred to Akbar v. Sadiq and 15`others (1972 SCMR 19), Mst. Madina Begum v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner and others (PLD 1968 Lah. 945) and Abdul Majid Khan v. The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner etc. (PLD 1968 SC 154).
3. The well-established law by now is that a decision of the Settlement Authorities on the question of divisibility or otherwise is final and the High Court cannot interfere in the same. The reliance of the learned Single Judge on the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan aforequoted is quite apt, .If we may say so with respect. The first case relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is distinguishable on facts in so far that the High Court had interfered in the division made by the Settlement Authorities and the appellant before the Supreme Court was claimant. In the present case, the Settlement Authorities having found the house to be indivisible and order of the transfer in favour of the claimant' having been upheld by the learned Single Judge, the appellants being local or non-claimant have no better right to agitate the matter. In the second case there had been a compromise between the parties about sharing the transfer of the house and one party had backed out. The matter was referred to the Settlement Authorities for consideration of the case of a claimant displaced person.
This is not the situation here. In the last mentioned case. Sh. Muhammad Hasan was also a claimant displaced person who was disputing the transfer. In the present case, the house having been found to be indivisible -and transferred to a claimant displaced person in preference to a local or non-claimant by the Settlement Authorities and the order having been upheld by the learned Single Judge in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction, there is no justification to interfere in the said orders.
4. Further, it may be noticed that Major Z. A. Ismail having filed .His LH form, his were Begum Humayun Zulfiqar Ismail was entitled to file LH form. She could only do so if her husband had withdrawn his form. He bad not done so. As regards her brother, ha had filed NCH form. He could not be transferred the premises on the basis of possession of his sister or her husband because the persons entitled under Para. I of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabili--tation) Act, 1958 are spouses or parents or their children and not brother-in --law. Therefore, the forms of Begum Humayun Zulfiqar Ismail and her brother being inadmissible and incompetent, they or their successors, appellants, had no right to challenge the transfer in favour of a claimant displaced person. Further, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred the house to the claimant Begum, Hamida Saadat Ali Khan, respondent No. 1, on 21-10-1959. Begum Humayun Zulfiqar Ismail and her brother challenged the order by means of an appeal after 105 days. It is obvious that they did not challenge the order in time because they knew and believed that as against a claimant displaced person in possession, they had no right for transfer being local or non-claimant. The appeal was dismissed as barred by time for 105 days by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner and his order having been upheld in a revision by the learned Settlement Commissioner and on writ petition by the learned Single Judge in his discretionary Constitutional jurisdiction, there is no occasion for interfe--occurrence after 21 years.
5. In view of what has been stated above, there is no force in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with costs.