1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19-2-1973 of the Lahore High Court, on Letters Patent Appeal No. 69 of 1966, whereby in an urban settlement case, it was found that the ground floor portion of Unit 'A' in an evacuee building, stood transferred to respondent No. 1 as a result of an order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner which not having been challenged by the appellant, had attained finality. To this extent the order of the learned Single Judge in the High Court whereby the respondents' writ petition was dismissed was modified.
2. The circumstances leading to the aforenoted proceedings were that the property No.SE 10-R-27 Nicholson Road Lahore which consisted of independent units was in possession of many persons.
3. The petitioners a non-claimant was in possession of first floor of unit ---A--- therein one Mst.
4. Asghari Begum, a claimant. Was in possession of the ground floor of the same Unit. A: K. Haqqani respondent No. 1, a claimant, was in posses--sion of the first floor a Unit 'C'. In the first round of proceedings, it was noted (but wrongly) that the appellant had not submitted any form for unit 'A' and Mst. Asghari Begum having submitted a C. H. Form had withdrawn the same, therefore, it was transferred to respondent No. I on his C. H.. Form. In the second round which consisted of proceedings on challenge from the appellant's side, it was found that he had submitted an N. C. H.
5. Form, therefore, was wrongly ousted from unit `A'. A. K. Haqqani felt aggrieved from the decision of the Settlement Authorities in the second round, he accordingly filed a petition which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 15-12-1965. On his .Intra-Court Appeal the learned Division Bench, after careful scrutiny of the entire proceedings, came to the conclusion as aforenoted that by virtue of the crucial order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 23-11-1960, the said respondent bad not been deprived of the ground floor of Unit 'A' (,while the first floor was transferred to the appellant). It modified the order impugned in the Letters Patent Appeal, with the result that the ground floor was declared as having been transferred to respondent No. 1.
6. Leave to appeal was granted to the appellant to examine the argument advanced from his side that "the transfer of the ground floor of unit 'A' of which respondent No I though a claimant was not in possession on the crucial date, could not in law be transferred to him in preference to the petitioner who, though a non-claimant, was in authorized possession of the first floor of unit 'A' when it is nobody's case that Unit 'A' is horizontally divisible". The observations and the decision of the Letters Patent Bench to which exception has been taken by the appellant in this appeal, read as follows :- "The upshot is that as the appellant is not seeking the reveral of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 23-11-1960. There is nothing left in this appeal, except to clarify that we are not in agreement with the view of the learned Single Judge that in pursuance of the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 23-11-1960. Portion 'A' was transferred to Sh. Abdul Hamid respondent No. 1 on his N. C. H. Form in preference to the appellant. On the contrary the Additional Commissioner as has been pointed out more than once above, took pains to clarify that he had ordered the transfer of only that part of the property which was in possession of the respondent. Consequently the ground floor portion of Unit 'A' continues to remain transferred in favour of the appellant. With this modification, in the order of the learned Single Judge, this appeal stands disposed of."
7. The learned counsel for the appellant frankly conceded that the order dated 23-11-1.980 passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner was not challenged by the appellant and the same having been so accepted by him attained finality. Therefore, he further agreed, if the ground floor of Unit 'A' was not transferred by the Additional Settlement Commissioner to the petitioner he would have no case to plead. He, however, vehemently contended that the said order dated 23-11-1960 if read as a whole would show that the entire Unit 'A' and not only its first floor, was transferred to the appellant.
8. The order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner which formed the basis of impugned decision of the High Court in the Letters Patent Appeal reads as follows :- "The Deputy Settlement Commissioner has rightly divided this property but the portion in dispute has not been rightly transferred. Sh. Abdul Hamid submitted his N. C. H. Form, being refugee, for the portion in his possession. This form was misplaced and he was allowed by the learned Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner to file a duplicate form. After scrutinising the record it is proved that the N. C. H. Form is there. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner treated Sh. Abdul Hamid a local and transferred this property to Abu Khurshid who is not actually living in this portion but is living in this portion but is living in a separate portion of the same building. Sh. Abdul Hamid has contended that Abu Khurshid is not entitled for the transfer of his portion when he is the regular allottee and has submitted his N. C. H. Form. I agree with his contention and bold that he is entitled for this portion. So I transfer the portion in his possession regularly allotted to him, against N. C. H.
9. Form submitted."
10. It is clear from the aforequoted order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner that only a portion of Unit 'A' which was in possession of the appellant was transferred to him. It was also mentioned in the said order that the appellant had applied for only the portion in his possession.
11. There is nothing` ambiguous which could lead us to a conclusion different from reached by the Division Bench of the High Court. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, tried to argue that the appellant had applied for the whole Unit 'A' in his form and for which lie relied on the enries in his N. C. H. Form. No doubt it is mentioned against Column 5 of the said form that. The unit being applied for was 'A' in property No. SE-10-R-27 but the answer given against column 9 was in the negative. This column reads as follows :- "9. Whether the house or part thereof is in the occupation of any person other than the applicant and his family ? If so, state the name of such person."
12. Admittedly, the ground floor of unit 'A' was occupied by Mst. Asghari Begum. The portion applied for by the appellant was described in the form as not being in occupation of any other person which could mean that he had sought transfer of the portion in his possession ; namely, the first floor. If the Additional Settlement Commissioner adopted this interpretation of the form submitted by the appellant, it could not be taken exception to neither in writ jurisdiction of the High Court nor can it be urged with and success before this Court. That being so, agreeing with the decision of the Letters Patent Bench of the High Court, we hold that only first floor of Unit 'A' was transferred by the Additional Settlement Commissioner to the appellant and transfer of the ground floor to the respondent earlier made, was not disturbed. If this is treated as exercise of powers of division by the Additional Settlement Commissioner and it related to Unit 'A', in that case, the appellant could not be treated as an aggrieved person regarding the transfer of a sub unit of Unit 'A' to the respondent which by operation of law became an independent Unit. Looked at from whatever angle the failure of the appellant to challenge the order of the Additional Settlement Com-- missioner dated 23-11-1960 or the appellant not being an aggrieved person insofar as the transfer of the ground floor of Unit 'A' to respondent No. 1 is concerned, this appeal would fail and is accordingly dismissed. There, shall, however, be no order as to costs.