' The dispute in this case relates to evacuee property No,1059-B, situated in Ward No, 18, Kamalia, District Faisalabad.
' The property being a composite unit, was occupied by the petitioner, respondents 2 and 3 and some other persons. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 12-11-1959 transferred residential portion on the ground-floor in favour of Noor Muhammad (respondent No, 2), to the exclusion bf Imam Din, respondent No 3, who was also in occupation of a portion of it. The petitioner was excluded because he had already been transferred another portion of it, including a shop and chobara, situated thereon. Iman Din (respondent No, 3) filed an appeal against the aforementioned order, which ended in a compromise between Noor Muhammad and Imam Din respondents, as mentioned in order dated 31-10-1960 of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, with the result that the portions in their possession were transferred to them. They were issued on 7-4-1964 P. T. Ds. Respect of the portions of the disputed property transferred to them.
2. The petitioner asserted that he filed a review application before the D. S. C. And also an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, but neither the review application was on the record, nor the grounds of appeal, and consequently he had -to file a revision petition, which was accepted by the Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 13-6-1964 and the case remanded to the D. S. C. For an inquiry regarding the filing of form by the petitioner claiming transfer of the disputed property.
3. The D. S. C., on Inquiry, held vide his order dated 14-11.1964 that the petitioner did not possess any room on the ground-floor. He held him not entitled to transfer of any- portion of the residential part of the building. His appeal failed on 14-11-1964 before the Additional settlement Commissioner, but his revision succeeded before the Settleent Commissioner on 30-10-1965. The Settlement Commissioner demanded the case with a direction to D. S. C. To visit the site, prepare a sketch, hear the parties and pass fresh order, The D. S. C. On remand, by order dated 28.10-1966, transferred portions "A" and "B", shown on the map, in favour of Umaid Ali Shah petitioner, portion "C" in favour of Imam Din and portion "D", "E" and "F" alongwith Chobara in favour of Noor Muhammad.
4. Two, appeals were filed against the aforementioned order by Noor Muhammad and Imam Din respondents, which were, however, rejected by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. Imam Din and Noor Muhammad, thereafter, filed revision petitions. The learned Settlement Commissioner, vide his order dated 10-2-1970, again remanded the case to the Additional Settlement Commissioner, and the later, on remand upheld the order dated 28-10-1966 passed by the D. S. C., whereby different portions of the property were transferred to the petitioner and respondents. 2 and 3. This order was assailed by means of two revisions filed by .Noor Muhammad and Umaid All Shah, which were disposed of by order dated 3-6-1973 of the Settlement Commissioner, whereby the original order of the transfer dated 12-11-1959 was upheld and the subsequent orders in respect of the property were set aside.This petition is directed against the aforementioned order of the Settlement Commissioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner having an unsatisfied claim to his credit was entitled to the transfer of the disputed property for adjustment of his claim. He also submitted that the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner on 20.10-1962 had attained finality, and, therefore, there was no justification for the restoration of the order dated 12-10-1959 passed by the D. S. C. It was argued that the Noor Muhammad in his statement dated 26-5-1952 had admitted that the petitioner was in possession of six rooms. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner had also held the petitioner to be in possession of a room on the ground-floor. It was, therefore, established that the petitioner was also in occupation of a residential portion of the property on the ground floor. He also submitted that the site plan prepared by the D. S. C. Was signed by the parties and on the basis of that, order dated 28-10-1966 was passed whereby the property in possession of different occupants was transferred to them. Be submitted that the finding of fact arrived at by the D. S. C. Could not have been set aside subsequently. It was submitted that by restoring order dated 12-11-1959, the Settlement Commissioner virtually reviewed the order dated 30.12-1965 of his predecessor.
6. Mr. Imam-ud-Din, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent No, 3, on the other hand, submitted that the property in dispute had already been sub-divided by virtue whereof .The petitioner was transferred a shop on the ground floor and a chobara situated on three shops. He. Submitted that he was not in possession of any portion of the residential part of the building on the ground floor and, therefore, was not entitled to the same. It was submitted that by order dated 12-11-1959 it was held that the petitioner had already been transferred a portion of the building and could not be further transferred any other portion thereof. It was next stated that P. T. D. Had been issued in favour of the respondents and the orders passed in their favour had not been set aside, therefore, the Settlement Department had become functus officio and the effect of the impugned order is that the same,position had been maintained. It was also submitted that in paras 4 and 8 of the writ petition it was admitted by the petitioner that he was not in possession of any portion on the ground floor and could lay no legitimate claim for it.
7. Ch Muhammad Ashraf Azeem, Advocate, reinforcing the arguments raised by the learned counsel for respondent No, 3 submitted that it was held in order dated 20-10-1962 of the Settlement Commissioner that the petitioner was not in occupation of any residential portion on the ground- floor and only the respondents were in possession of the same, and this finding of fact remained intact against the petitioner. He also submitted that order dated 12-11-1959 had attained finality against the petitioner because he did not assail the same in appeal. It was contended that even according to his own showing, he withdrew the review petition, as such it does not lie in his mouth to say anything against it.
8. I have given full consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, with reference to documents on the file, and find that the petitioner has no valid claim to the transfer of any part of residential portion, situated on the ground floor of the disputed property. In fact, it is according to his own showing in paras 3 and 4 of the writ petition that he was dispossessed, if at all he was in possession of any portion thereof before 28-5-1952. The order dated 12-11-1959, transferring respective portions to the occupants, was not assailed in appeal by the petitioner and he withdrew review petition filed by him, as mentioned in para 8 of the petition.
The P. T. Ds. Were issued in favour of respondents 2 and 3 with regard to the residential portions transferred to them on the ground-floor. There are consistent findings of the two Deputy Settlement Commissioners and the Settlement Commissioner in impugned order that only respondents 2 and 3 were in possession and entitled to the transfer of the residential parts of the building on the ground-floor. The finding cannot be successfully assailed in writ jurisdiction, particularly in view of the fact that it was held that the petitioner did not occupy any residential portion of the building on the ground-floor. The mere fact that some claim was pending satisfaction to his credit would not entitle him to the transfer of the property, to which, otherwise, he was found not entitled. The impugned order passer' by the Settlement Commissioner on 13-6-1979 is unexceptionable. I am satisfied that the petitioner has no valid claim to the transfer of any residential portion of the building on the ground-floor.
9. In view of the reasons recorded above, I find no force in this petition and dismiss it with no order as to costs.