M. S. H. QURESHI, J.-This is the second time that Mst. Fahmeeda Kausar petitioner has come to this Court on the question of demarcation between property No. B-111-SI-18 (to be referred to as property No. 18) transferred to her and property No. B-111-SI-18/A (to be referred to as property No. 18/A) transferred to Mst. Farhat and Mst. Rabat respondents. The area of property No. 18, as given in her transfer order dated 9-1-1960, was 1 kanal, 19'marlas. However, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, during his inspection, noticed that the area, transferred to her measured 2 kanals, 19 marlas. He, therefore, by his order dated 17-12-1960 enhanced the price from Rs.9,600.00 to Rs.
144,00.00. On the other hand, the respondents claimed that although they had been transferred an area of 1 kanal, 15 marlas but the area actually given to them was less. They, therefore, applied for demarcation of their property No. 18/A. But the Deputy Settlement Commis--sioner by his order dated 31-5-1961 held that as only five rooms were available for transfer, the same were to be delivered to them. The matter ultimately came in revision before Ch. Ali Ahmad, Settlement Commissioner, who held, vide order dated 6-9-1962, that no part of property No. 18/A which was originally transferred to the respondents "should be affected by any subsequent order" and accordingly directed that "the property bearing No. B/III/SI-18 according to the Taxation record be retained by Mst. Farhat and Rabat and that nothing contained in the above-mentioned orders dated 17-12-1960 and 31-5-1961 shall affect the transfer of this property B-III-SI --18-A to the petitioners (Mst. Farhat and Mst. Rabat)". This order of the Settlement Commissioner not having been challenged holds the field and in fact the High Court and the Supreme Court, in the earlier round, had held that the demarcation had to be made in accordance with that order.
2. Upon rejection of the petitioner's Review Petition No.10 of 1969 on 2-7-1971 by this Court, the matter went back to the Settlement Commissioner for demarcation as above. Sheikh Ijaz Ahmad, learned Settlement Commissioner, proceeded to identify the properties on the basis of the Taxation record but he found that the same did not explain matters because according to that record there were to be 9 rooms in property No. 18 and 5 in property No. 18; A, i. e. 14 rooms in all, whereas on spot inspection made by him he found 29 rooms in both the properties as shown in plan Exh. CB which had been accepted by both parties. He, therefore, made further probe in the matter. According to his examination the property had been originally owned by Bakhshi Ram and Dhanpat R.I in half and half share. The property was partitioned by a partition deed dated 14-4- 1937. The Taxation record described the two portions separately, one as property No. 18 measuring 1 kanal, 15 marlas owned by Bakhshi Ram and sons and the other as property No. 18/A also measuring 1 kanal, 15 marlas, owned by Lala Barkat Ram etc. Sons of Dhanpat R.I, the portion of Dhanpat R.I being on the east of that of Bakhshi Ram. The learned Settlement Commis--sioner further found that as the petrol pump run by Bakhshi Ram fell, in the result of the partition, in the portion of Dbanpat R.I, it was agreed between the parties by the partition deed that Bakhshi Ram would continue to run the business of the pump on payment of Re. 1-00 p. m. To Dhanpat R.I.
Bakhshi Ram also executed another rent note in favour of Dhanpat R.I in respect of two rooms and some open land, which he took for a ten years lease with effect from 24-3-1937 at Re. 1.00 p.m. The boundary of this area bad been described in the rent deed as "North road, South open land of Dhanpat R.I, East `Adda Lorries' and West land of Dhanpat R.I". The learned Settlement Commissioner al6o noticed entry of Mutation No. 306 dated 17-11-1937 sanctioned on the basis of the aforementioned partition deed: The mutation further showed that both portions measured 1 kanal, 15 marlas each and that the portion of Dhanpat R.I bore Khasra No. 1876/1714/641/2 while that of Bakhshi Ram bore Khasra No. 1875/1714/641/1. Finally, in the light of the Taxation record and with the help of other documents, he prepared the plan Exh. CB showing the boundaries and the measurements of the two properties and the line of their partition in red ink. Both portion so demarcated by him measured 1 kanal, 15 marlas each. However, he ended with the observation that "if necessary the partition line may be adjusted slightly accordingly so that each property may have that much area".
3. This order of the Settlement Commissioner passed on 30-4-1974 was again challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1067/R of 1974 but the same was dismissed on 10-12-1975, whereupon she filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
4. It is argued before us that (1) the learned Settlement Commissioner went beyond the scope of the demarcation inquiry outlined in the order of his predecessor dated 6-9-1972, (2) specific portions in possession of the petitioner could not be taken away by the demarcation and (3) the factum of actual possession could not be disregarded and as such an error in describing the number of the property needed to be ignored instead of giving her in the name of demarcation, property other than in her possession. In this connection it was added that the petitioner was not in possession of any portion of property No. 18.
5. We are not impressed by these submissions. The learned Settlement Commissioner was throughout conscious that the demarcation had to be made in the light of the Taxation record. He has given reasons why he had to fall back on the other earlier records of the properties. In this connec--tion he observed "I agree with him (petitioner's counsel) that the demarca--tion is to be given in accordance with the Taxation record but that record in itself is not helpful to define specifically as to which half of the property measuring 1 kanal and 15 marlas is covered by property No. 18 and which half having similar area is covered by property No. 18-A". We also have no reason to agree with learned counsel that the petitioner had not been in possession of any portion of property No. 18-First because there is no residential portion in property No. 18/A shown in the plan forming Annexure I/1 to this petition. Such residential portion is shown only in property No. 18 which was then the residential portion in her possession. Secondly, because according to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order dated 17-12-1960 the petitioner had been, on local inspection, found to have been in possession of 2 kanals, 19 marlas, which fact is obviously incompatible with her present stand that she was not in occupation of any portion of the other property because each property measured only 1 kanal, 15 marlas. Even otherwise, the question of actual possession of the petitioner is one of fact and this Court is not bound to examine the correctness or otherwise of the decision take by the Settlement Authority and upheld by the High Court.
6. In the circumstance, we find no good ground to justify any inter--ference. The petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.