ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.------This order will dispose of L. . P. A. No. 1324 of 1966 and L. P. A. No. 1328 of 1966 as these relate to the same property in dispute.
2. Property No. S.-64-R.-6, New Anarkali,` Lahore, is a composite property consisting of two shops and a residential' portion, One shop was in possession of Rehmat Ali, Muhammad Sadiq and Muhammad Ashiq, the claimant displaced persons, allottees from 7th October, 1952. The other shop was in possession of Malik Muhammad Hussain, a local. The residential portion was in possession of Muhammad Iqbal Nadvi who claimed to be a Jammu and Kashmir refugee and allotted from 14th March, 1955. Rehmat Ali, Muhammad Sadiq and Muhammad Ashiq's father, namely, Mian Muhammad Siddique filed a joint C',. S. Form for the shop in their possession.
Muhammad Iqba1 Nadvi filed N. C. S. Form. Malik Muhammad Hussain being a local and ineligible did not file any form. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 14th December, 1959 transferred the shop in possession of Rehmat Ali, etc, in their favour. The other shop, he ordered to be put in auction: The residential portion was ordered to be transferred to Muhammad Iqbal Nadvi. Rehmat Ali. Etc. Filed an appeal asking for the entire property which was rejected on 1st February, 1960 but their revision was accepted and case remanded on 9th August, 1960. On remand the Deputy Settle--ment Commissioner did not transfer the entire property to Rehmat Ali, etc. But left them with the shop already transferred in their favour. The residential portion earlier transferred to Muhammad Iqbal Nadvi, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner ordered that that be put in auction.
The shop in possession of local remained as before, that is to say, available for transfer by auction.
Muhammad Iqbal Nadvi filed an appeal asking for the residential portion which was rejected by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 12th February, 1962 and his revision by the Settlement Commissioner on 5th April, 1962. He filed Writ Petition No. 714/R-62 in which Rehmat Ali, etc. Also got impleaded. When the case came up for final hearing, counsel for the then petitioner Muhammad Iqbal Nadvi, stated that his "claim is only with regard to that portion of the property which has not yet been transferred in favour of respondents Nos. 3 to 5, namely, Rehmat Ali. Muhammad Siddiq and Muhammad Sadiq who were made parties on their own application. The petitioner is claiming only the rest of the property and has prayed that writs of certiorari and mandamus be issued with regard to it. Learned counsel appearing for Rehmat Ali, etc. Stated in his statement that :- "In view of the statement made by M. Fazle Ghani, I have no objection if the petition is accepted and the writs asked for are issued with regard to that part of the property which has not been transferred in favour of respondents Nos. 3 to 5." In view of this the learned Single Judge accepted the Writ Petition of Muhammad Iqbal Nadvi and declared the order of the Settlement Commis--sioners dated 5th April, 1962 to be without lawful authority. This is vide order dated 17th June, 1963. In spite of the statement by the learned counsel for Rehmat Ali, etc'. The latter challenged the last mentioned order by means of Letters Patent Appeal No. 223 of 1963 which was dismissed by a learned Division Bench on the ground that "This L. P. A. Is against a consent order, i. e. An order assented to by learned counsel for the appellants. This appeal is therefore, dismissed." This is vide order dated 9th July, 1964. The order was sought to be reviewed but the review application was dismissed on 17th December, 1964. Against the order of Deputy Settlement Commissioner passed on remand on 7th August, 1961 by which Rehmat Ali etc. Were left with the shop earlier transferred in their favour and were not given other portion of the pro--perty, they had filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 27th October, 1961 and their revision petition was also dismissed on 5th September, 1963. They challenged these orders through Writ Petition No. 2828-R/63, which has been accepted and case remanded for fresh decision vide order dated 7th November, 1966. This order is challenged by Muhammad Iqbal Nadvi through L. P. A. No. 1324 of 1966 on the ground that the residential portion in his possession was transferred in his favour by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 14th December, 1959 and when that order became ineffective in view of the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 5th September, 1963, his Writ Petition No. 714/R-62 had been accepted and the efforts of Rehmat Ali, etc. To get that order set aside in L. P. A. And review, having failed, the learned Single Judge was in error to have interfered in the rights of the appellant Muhammad Iqbal Nadvi. Rehmat Ali, etc. Have filed L. P. A.
No. 1328 of 1966 against the order of the learned Single Judge passed on their Writ Petition No. 2828/R-63 contending that the case should not have been remanded but decided in their favour and the entire property should have been transferred to the appellants. Malik Muhammad Hussain, a local who was in possession of one shop and who was not transferred the shop in the first instance, had joined the proceedings and the learned counsel appearing for him has stated that the shop in question instead of having been auctioned has now been transferred to the occupant Malik Muhammad Hussain because the latter has become eligible for transfer and the order of transfer is dated 7th April, 1972, in pursuance of which he had paid the entire transfer price on 2nd December, 1978.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for Muhammad Iqbal Nadvi as well as Rehmat Ali, etc. And the learned counsel for the heirs of Malik Muhammad Hussain. Since the order appealed against is one of remand we were reluctant to go into it but we find that allowing the same to stand would only lead to litigation for another 20 years without any purpose as the facts are quite clear and have already been determined by various authorities including the High Court. As. Far as the appeal of Muhammad Iqbal Nadvi is concerned, he was found in possession of, residential portion which was transferred to him by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 14th December, 1959 ; when that became inchoate by the order of Settlement Commissioner dated 5th September, 1963, hisWrit Petition No. 714/R-62 was accepted and the efforts of Rehmat Ali etc. To get that order annulled failed when their L, P. A. And review application were dismissed. Therefore, the net result is that Muhammad Iqbal Nadvi having succeeded in the previous litigation right upto the L. P. A.
Bench, is entitled to remain in peace and be transferred the portion in his possession and there is no justification to put the matter in the litigation all over again. Consequently, he is entitled to the success in his appeal which is accepted and the relevant authorities directed to transfer the portion in his possession according to law. As regards appeal of Rehmat Ali, etc., it has to be noticed that they are seeking transfer of the entire property. Now this cannot be done simply for the reason that the residential portion bad already gone to Muhammad Iqbal Nadvi. The other shop was ordered to be auctioned and has lately been transferred in favour of the heirs of Malik Muhammad Hussain, the occupants. The appellants Rehmat Ali, etc. Cannot get this shop for the simple reason that they were in possession of one shop for which they had filed joint C. S. Form and which has been transferred to them. They being not in possession of the second shop, the Settlement Commissioner was quite right in-saying on 5th September, 1963 that they were not entitled to the transfer of this shop. In this view of the matter, there is no use allowing the case to prolong for nothing. The rights of Rehmat Ali, etc. Are crystal clear that the shop in their possession has already been trans--ferred to them and they cannot claim transfer of the shop of the residential portion. The property consisted of two shops and the residential portion thus, stood divided, and having been transferred to the respective occupants there is no use prolonging the litigation. The contention of- the learned counsel for Rehmat Ali, etc. Vehemently urged may be taken note of that Muhammad Iqbal Nadvi was not a Jammu and Kashmir refugee. Whether he was Jammu and Kashmir refugee or not, the appellants Rehmat Ali, etc. Having been transferred the shop in their possession, have no locus standi to challenge the transfer in favour of Muhammad lqbal Nadvi. Moreover, this matter had earlier been the subject-matter of dispute between the parties and Muhammad Iqbal Nadvi having succeeded as a Jammu and Kashmir refugee when his Writ Petition was accepted with the consent of the learned counsel for Rehmat Ali, etc., it is no use their crying on the spilt milk. Therefore, their appeal has no merit and is dismissed.
4. The net result is that L. P. A. Bearing No. 1324/66 filed by Muhammad Iqbal Nadvi is allowed but the second one bearing L. P. A. No. 1328/66. Filed by Rehmat Ali, etc. Is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs.