1. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-This petition relates to an evacuee Bungalow No. A/758, Arjan Nagar, City Saddar Road, Rawalpindi, over which the two parties, namely Mst. Riaz Begum petitioner and Kh.
2. Hayatullah respon--dent No. 1 are having a tussle for the last 22 years and this is the third round of litigation between theist.
3. Before proceeding to give a resume of the various stages of the litigation between the parties it would be very helpful to have a look at the site plan placed at page 45 of the Paper Book. It is a building on a plot measuring 180' x 82', comprising ten rooms, eight servant quarters, garage, kitchens and lawns in front and back of- the bungalow, with a gallary running right in the middle.
4. There are 5 rooms on the one side and 5 identical rooms on the other side, with two dressing rooms and bath rooms. The courtyard is also equally divided in two portions by a wall running in between.
5. The parties have been in possession of their respective portions of the bungalow since 1950. Five rooms on the left side of the house (as shown in the site plan) as well as the outhouses and kitchen and half of the courtyard had been in possession of Hayatullah respondent, while three rooms out of the five rooms on the right hand side were in possession of Mst. Riaz Begum along--with the three outhouses, garage and a kitchen. The remaining two rooms on the right hand side were in the possession of one Muhammad Umar. Both Riaz Begum and Kh. Hayatullab, who are claimants, filed C. H. Forms for the transfer of the entire house on 21-12-1959. The Deputy Settlement Com-- missioner transferred the entire house to Mst. Riaz Begum. Hayatulllah respondent filed an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner who reversed the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and trans--ferred the house to the respondent Mst. Riaz Begum petitioner then filed a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner which was dismissed by him on 27-4-1960.
6. She then filed a further revision before the Chief Settlement Commissioner who, after spot inspection ordered that the portion in possession of Mir. Riaz Begum and that in possession of respondent No. 2, were two independent units, it should be transferred to the petitioner as well as respondent No. 1, "according to their possession".
7. Hayatullah then filed a writ petition claiming the entire bungalow. But it was dismissed by the High Court on 19-10-1965. He then filed an L. P. A., which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on 30-3-1966. At this stage, Muhammad Umar who was in occupation of two rooms of the portion of the bungalow on the right hand side, came forward and filed an application on 1-1-1966, for the transfer of the said two rooms, before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, which was dismissed on 7-3-1966 on the ground that the entire bungalow stood disposed of. Muhammad Umar having died, his legal heirs filed an appeal against the said order before the Additional Settlement Commissioner which was dismissed on 5-7-1966, with the observation that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner should clarify as to who was the transferee of the two rooms in question.
8. The legal repre--sentatives of Muhammad Umar aforesaid then filed a revision petition which, too, was dismissed on 23-11-1967. It was again observed in this order that the division of the house in dispute regarding Mst. Riaz Begum and Kh. Hayatullah, will be decided by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The legal heirs of the said Muhammad Umar then filed a writ petition (No. 267-R of 1968) which was accepted by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on 4-8-1971, holding that the two rooms in question had not been disposed of and were, therefore, available for transfer to Muhammad Umar. Against this judgment Mst. Riaz Begum filed an L. P. A. (No. 327 of 1971, but Hayatullah respondent did not challenge it. The L. P. A. Was accepted by a Division Bench of the High Court on 12-10-1980 with the observation that the two rooms in question already stood transferred. The legal heirs of the aforesaid Muhammad Umar then filed a petition for Leave to Appeal before this Court which was dismissed on 12-4-1981, upholding the view taken by the L. P. A.
9. Bench, namely, that the two rooms already stood disposed of. Thereafter on 6-5-1981, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner issued a transfer order for one-half of the bungalow on the right hand side in favour of the appellant. On this Hayatullah respondent filed an application to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner praying therein that the P. T. O. Issued in favour of the petitioner transferring one-half of the house in dispute to her should be recalled. This application was dismissed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 20-8-1981. It was now Hayatullah respondent who filed a writ petition (No. 67-R of 1981) in the High Court which was accepted by a learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 8-3-1982. Against this order Mst. Rcaz Begum has filed the present petition for Leave to Appeal.
3. Mr. Samad Mahmood, Advocate, is present in Court on behalf of respondent No. 1. The only ground involved in this case is the interpretation that must be placed on the order of Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 16-8-1961.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length on this point and have also gone through various orders referred to above with their help. The above-noted history of the case shows that the dispute between the parties is only over two rooms of the Bungalow in question. This is a typical case illustrative of the legal warfare that has been raging in thecountry over evacuee property and clogged Courts of law in Pakistan, which is one of the main reasons for the delay in disposal of other ordinary and normal cases. Both the parties in this case have been living in two separate portions of this house since 1950, i.e., for the last 20 years, but they are quibbling over two rooms, not only squandering their own energies as well as money, but also wasting valuable public time. Having considered all the facts of the case we find that the Chief Settlement Commissioner, who had personally inspected the spot and examined the structure of the house in question, found that it was divisible. Reading the last and the final portion of this order (dated 16-8-1961) we are of the view what the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner meant to say was that while Hayatullah respondent would retain half of the house which was in his possession, Mst. Riaz Begum petitioner, will obtain the other half on the right side because Muhammad Umar aforesaid, who was occupying two rooms on that side was not at all in the picture and had not even applied for transfer of the said rooms at the relevant time.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length, w convert this petition into an appeal and accept it, holding that the house in question stands divided according to the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner into two equal portions, on.--half on the left side having been transferred to Hayatullah respondent along with half of the courtyard and outhouses, etc. Situated in it; while the other portion on the right side was transferred to Mst. Riaz Begum appellant along with one-half of the court--yard and outhouses, garage and other rooms, etc. Situated therein. As such each party is entitled to retain that portion transferred to it by the final authority in the Settlement hierarchy. The counsel for the parties have stated the gallary situated between the two portions is being used by both the parties. As such whenever the house is ultimately demolished, the gallary shall be divided lengthwise into two equal halves. The courtyards and the verandahs both on the front as well as on the back of the house are also divided in the same manner. The appeal stands disposed of with these observations.
11. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.