1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27- 2-1982 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Settlement Appeal No.18 of 1970.
2. The dispute is whether the property bearing Nos. G-177 to G-190 situate on Liaqat Road, Rawalpindi is evacuee property simpliciter or evacuee trust property. The Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, on a reference made by the Chairman, District Evacuee Trust Committee, Rawalpindi,under section 4(3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, held in his order dated 20-12-69 that the property in dispute was not attached to any Religious or other Evacuee Trust and, therefore, was an evacuee property which could be transferred under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The appeal against the said order to the High Court having failed hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. It was common ground between the parties that the property situate in Khasra Nos. 1125, 1126, 1127 and 1129 in Rawalpindi Estate constituted Evacuee Religious Trust Property but the property situate in Khasra No. 1124 did not do so. The question, therefore, was whether the property in dispute was located in Khasra Nos. 1125, 1126, 1127, 1129 or in Khasra No. 1124. The Settlement Commissioner found that the property lay in Khasra No. 1124 and not in Khasra Nos. 1125, 1126, 1127 and. 1129. An application was, therefore, also moved in the High Court praying for demar--cation in order to clarify the position. The High Court held that it was not established that the property lay in Khasra Nos. 1125, 1126, 1127 and 1129 and, consequently, it was not attached to any Religious Trust but constituted Evacuee Property simpliciter. The findings of the Chief Settle--ment Commissioner were accordingly upheld and appeal dismissed.
4. The only question agitated before us by Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, learned Advocate-on- Record on behalf of the petitioner was that an application having been made before the Court for getting the property demarcated in order to determine whether the property was situated in one Khasra No. Or the other the learned Judge in the High Court erred in law in deciding the appeal without disposing of the said application. The learned counsel submitted that the application preferred in this connection had not bee disposed of and, therefore, the High Court had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it and its order requires interference.
5. Khawaja Muhammad Farooq, appearing on behalf of the Caveator, submitted that as he had not examined the record of the case and he could not definitely state as to whether the application preferred by the petitioner before the High Court had or had not been disposed of. We have, therefore, sent for the record of the High Court and on perusing it found that the application for getting the property demarcated was taken up on 15-2-198.'. And after hearing the learned counsel for the parties was rejected. The order passed in this connection reads as follows:- "The appellant has moved application for getting the property in dispute demarcated through revenue authorities. The appellant could have got the demarcation done at the trial stage of the case. In appeal at this belated stage this application cannot but be rejected as the appeal can be decided on the material already brought on the record."
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not urged anything to challenge the correctness of the above order; indeed he was not aware of its existence and his whole argument was based on the assumption that the application praying for getting the property in dispute demarcated had not at all been attended to. The learned counsel for the petitioner not having challenged the correctness of the order of the High Court on the basis of the material before it and the objection only being that the application for getting the property in dispute demarcated not having been decided and the said assumption having been unfounded there is no force in this petition, which is accordingly, dismissed.