1. SHAFI-UR-REHMAN, J.-The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 5-10-1980 whereby their constitu--tional petition was dismissed in limine.
2. The case of the petitioners was that there was a bigger shop bearing Property No. 7-S-116 Block No. 1, Sargodha which was located on Khasra No. 118 with a Thara on Khasra No. 11 7. According to them, there was a smaller shop adjacent to it, unnumbered in the Rehabilitation record, located on Khasra Nos. 119 and 120. On a reference made by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner through the Additional Settlement Commissioner, by an order dated 17-6-1960, the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner had ordered that the two shops be disposed of separately.
3. Muhammad Usman, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was transferred the bigger shop as a converted Soap Factory by the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 4-11-1980.
4. The petitioners got possession of the smaller shop.
5. There was another local Muhammad Shan who was in its possession. In 1977 petitioner sought its transfer under Settlement Scheme No. IX as a residual property. They were allowed the transfer but the Administrator on revision set it aside. They challenged the decision of the Administrator on various grounds but failed.
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Settlement Commissioner having ordered as early as 1960 that the two properties had to be disposed of separately, the respondents could not claim both the shops. In any case, the revision filed by the predecessor-in-- -interest of the affected respondents, was barred by time and could not be dealt with in their favour without adverting to the question of limitation. Finally, it is contended that the finding of fact recorded by the Administrator is against the weight of the record on the subject and cannot be sustained.
7. At the hearing of the petition, a number of other facts came to light and they had to be considered alongwith the case put forward by the petitioners in order to comprehend the background of the litigation. In January 1952, one Hakim Zamir Ahmad complained against Usman the predecessor- in-interest of the respondents that he was a local and occupying two shops which he should not be permitted to occupy. It was enquired into and it was found that Usman was a pre-Partition tenant of the same and his possession was protected. He was held to be an allottee of the shops and nothing more was done. The report that was made in June 1960 related to a portion adjacent to Shop No. S-116 and the following mention is made therein :- "------------..The factual position as came out is that there are certainly two shops. This fact has also been admitting by Muhammad Usman occupant of Shop No. 7-S-116, Block No. 1, Sargodha, vide his statement at page 6 of the file."
8. The smaller shop was held to be 6" x 23". The smaller shop was assessed at Rs 8 and separate disposal was ordered. In 1965, the petitioners entered as tenants of the bigger shop under a rent note executed on 1-1-1966 in favour of Muhammad Usman. This was renewed by another tenancy agreement of 1970: In June 1977 Muhammad Usman instituted proceedings under section 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance for the eviction of the petitioners from that shop on various grounds not material for this case. It was on 31-10-1977 that the petitioners submitted a claim with the Deputy Administrator Residual Property for the transfer of the so-called smaller shop on the ground that they had obtained its possession from its local occupant Muhammad Shall; that it was still to be disposed of and that Muhammad Usman had nothing to do with it, transfer of the property was ordered without notice or hearing to Muhammad Usman. He on coming to know of the transfer, challenged it on the ground that it was part of the property transferred to him and not a residual property at all. That revision petition was fled about a year after the order of the transfer.
9. It was allowed but remand order was passed which was challenged unsuccessfully by the petitioners by a constitutional petition. On remand, the Deputy Administrator again passed an order in favour of the petitioner which was set aside by the Administrator in revision. The constitutional petition of the petitioners against that order failed.
10. We find that two facts having an important bearing on the case stand out. The first is that the possession of Muhammad Usman over two shops and two shops' here mean what the learned counsel for the petitioners calls bigger and smaller, in 1952 is made out and justified and protected.
11. Secondly Muhammad Usman had got the shop in his possession transferred as a converted property a shop converted into an industrial concern as a Soap Factory. This could imply that after 1947 and before December 1958 the conversion had taken place. Such a conversion could imply the amalgamation of properties and the two shops admittedly belonged to the same evacuee.
12. Another fact to be noted is that the possession of the petitioners in 1965 is traceable to the rent agreement so far as premises in possession of Muhammad Usman are concerned. In such a background can it be said that the administrative order passed by the Settlement Commis--sioner in June 1960 held the field so as to supervene these developments of an earlier date which formed the basis of the transfer order in favour of Muhammad Usman. What is claimed as a residual property bears no existence in the records of the Rehabilitation Department and was held to be a shop allotted to Usman in his possession in 1952. We are clear, therefore, that on merits the petitioners had no case to advance in constitutional jurisdiction.
13. As regards limitation and the revision petition filed by the respondent, it has to be noted that a property for which P. T. D. Was held by Usman could not be subjected to such a clandestine disposal in the absence and behind the back of the transferee and his claim defeated on the ground of limitation. The very assumption of jurisdiction by the Deputy Administrator Residual Property over a property which stood transferred was without lawful authority, and in any case, the act done by him could not be protected under the law which governed him.
14. We find no merit in the petition and the leave to appeal is refused.