1. SHAFI-UR-REHMAN, J.-Leave to appeal was granted to Boga Khan appellant to examine whether the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 23-4-1975 setting aside the order of the Settlement Commissioner dat6d 3-12-1973 and thereby denying to the appellant the plot in his possession and built upon by him and maintaining the transfer of the same to the respondents was in accordance with the law.
2. A portion of plot of land measuring 8 marlas and 7 sarsais described as plot No. 15, Block No. 1, Jahania Town, Tehsil Khanewal, District Multan is the subject of dispute. The appellant claims that he was in possession of 2 marlas of it equal to 560 sq. Ft. Under an allotment order since 1952 and bad raised permanent construction over it. On the remaining portion of the plot Rehmat A.I and Muhammad Shafi respondents were in possession and had raised permanent construction. On 23- 1-1961 the whole plot was transferred to Rehmat A.I and Muhammad Shall and they obtained the P.
3. T. D. For the same on the 12th of September 1962. On 10-11-1962 the appellant filed an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner complaining that he had applied for the portion in his possession and without attending to his claim form even his portion had been transferred to the respondents.By an order dated 30-11-1962 the Additional Settlement Commissionerordered that portion of the plot in his possession be transferred to the appellant provided he filed within a month of that order his form for it. The form was filed on 18-1-1963 after obtaining a copy (applied on 4-12- 1962 obtained on 14-1-1963) of the Additional Commissioner's order in appeal by which he was allowed to file the form. On 2-4-1964, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner rejected the form on the ground of his not filing the form within one month of the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and on 1-7-1964 the Additional Settlement Commissioner rejected his appeal.
4. However, on 12-1-1965 the Settlement Commissioner accepted the revision petition of the appellant holding that the appellant had filed the form within a period of one month after excluding the time in obtaining a copy of the order but directed the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to dispose of that form.
5. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 25-2-1965 allowed the transfer in favour of the appellant thereby reducing the area of the plot transferred to the respondents. A writ petition was filed by the respondents challenging the orders passed against them on 30-11-1962, 12-1-1965 and 25-2-1965. It succeeded on 11-10-1971 and a remand was ordered directing the Settlement Authorities to re- examine the case afresh and to determine the entitlement of the parties. None felt aggrieved by this remand order. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner held the appellant ineligible on the ground that he had not filed the form in time. On appeal the Settlement Commissioner allowed the portion in possession of the appellant to him. The order was once again challenged by the respondent by means of a constitutional petition. The learned Judge in the High Court held that the plot as a whole stood transferred to the respondents and a P. T. D. Was issued to them on 12-9- 1962. It was thereafter that the appellant had filed his appeal and the form for the transfer of the plot in his possession. He could not in such a belated proceedings after the issuance of the P. T. D.
6. Claim that property. Hence the constitu--tional petition was allowed and the transfer in favour of the respondents was kept intact.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have come' to the conclusion that it was not ever seriously disputed at any stage that the appellant was in possession of a portion of the Plot No. 15, Block 1 and bad raised permanent construction over it before the target date. On this fact alone the respondents could not be transferred at least that portion which was in possession of the appellant and over which he bad raised the construction. After the remand order of the High Court in the first writ petition filed by the respondents against which none of the parties preferred appeal the question of transfer had to be re-examined and the merits of the case of each partyreconsidered. A re-examination of the case of parties on merits would have disentitled the respondents to claim that portion which was in the possession of the appellant and over which he had raised a permanent construction. To that extent the order of the Settlement Commissioner impugned in the writ petition was unexceptionable and could not be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction on any ground whatsoever. In the circumstances, we accept the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the transfer as ordered by the Settlement Commissioner on 3-12-1973.
8. After hearing the orders in the case the parties sought permission of the Court to readjust their possession by mutual understanding and consultation with a view to make full, convenient and the most profitable use of the land to which they were held entitled under the orders of the Settlement Commissioner dated 3-1.2-1973.Its order to do complete justice in the case we allowed the parties to get the compromise recorded. They have submitted a recorded compromise. It stands incorporated in this order. Possession of the parties shall be readjusted accordingly and effect shall be given to it as agreed upon, by the parties. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.