M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-The dispute relates to transfer of property No. S-IV-22-S-14. This property was auctioned in favour of petitioner Hadi Hasan Jafry on 6-8-1960. Against column No. 1 of the particulars of the property to be put to auction, its number was given as No. S-IV-22-S 14 Yasin Street, Hall Road. Against column No. 6 i.e. "Whether part or full," the word "Full" was written .But against column No. 7, i.e. "Name Of occupants," the words, "Suba, Lal Din and Rusi" were; Written,However, a dispute arose as to the extent of the property so sanctioned, between the petitioner and respondent Muhammad Ayub, the transferee of' adjoining house No. S- IV-S-16, Ghulam Hasan alias Hassa and Meraj Din occupants of separate portions in Property No. S-IV-22-S-14 The litigation continued until it came up in a number of revisions before Mr. Muhammad Azam, Additional Settlement Commissioner, Lahore. The case of the petitioner was that the whole Property No S-14 had been transferred in his favour as such no portion of it could be transferred in favour of said respondent. The case of Ghulam Hasan and Mehraj Din was that they had applied in November, 1959 on B. S. Form under Scheme No. VI and that without the disposal of that form the auction held in favour of the petitioner was void. They also claimed transfer in their favour under Scheme No. VIII for which they had filed form in 1971. The grievance of Muhammad Ayub was that he had been, by an order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 18-10- 1962, deprived of a sizable portion of the courtyard of his property No. S-16 in the garb of demarcation. The Addition Settlement Commis--sioner held that :-- - "Whatever area and property which was sold by the department can be given to the petitioner and in the garb of the demarcation the area cannot be increased. Only three quarters were put to auction which could be given and demarcated accordingly after an opportunity of being heard."
With this observation he, by order dated 14-1-1974, remanded the matter to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for deciding the matter afresh "in accordance with law and on merits after visiting the spot, and after hearing all the parties concerned taking into consideration all the relevant record and only then the demarcation case be decided." The petitioner did not challenge this order.
2. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner accordingly visited the spot and after hearing the parties made a preliminary order dated 15-11-1975 and thereafter passed the final order dated 7-7-1976. In regard to the case of Ghulam Hasan and Mehraj Din, he observed "The plots in their respective possession were demarcated by my learned predecessor, vide his order dated 22- 3-1973, as part of property No. S-IV-22-S-14 purchased by Hadi Jafri in open auction. But this order was challenged and Mr. Muhammad Azam, Additional Settlement Commissioner accepted their revision petitions thereby holding that the plots in their possession were never included in the auction lists and that the property which was never included in the auction, cannot be given to Hadi Hasan Jafri in the garb of demaraction, and that their forms were not rightly rejected and that the property be disposed of according to law after taking into consideration all the evidence."
He did not accept their contention that they had filed a B. S. Form in November, 1959 but holding that since the property in their possession was available, ordered transfer of the same in their favour under Scheme No. VIII.
In regard to the dispute between the petitioner and Muhammad Ayub, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner observed that the petitioner was not entitled to anything more than the three quarters which had been purchased by him in the auction but held that: "But there should be a passage for these quarters. I feel that it should not be harsh on him (Muhammad Ayub) if a passage is given to Hadi Fiasan Jafri out of his property and as such I order that a 6 feet vide passage running alone the 3 quarters be given to him. The passage has - been shown by me in green colour in the plan marked Exh. M. This passage will have connection with soling road passing by the Waqf plot and then ultimately is to have a link with Yasin Street leading towards Hall Road as is shown in Exh. M."
3. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court but the same was dismissed in limine by the impugned order dated 22.-10-1977. The learned Judge came to the view that :- "No doubt, the number of the property was given in the auction list but it was also made clear that the quarters in possession of Suba, Lai Din and Rozi were being auctioned. Other quarters in possession of others were not mentioned in the auction list."
He, therefore, held that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was "quite right that the property transferred to the petitioner was confined to the three quarters which have been in the occupation of Rozi, Lai Din and Suba and which had been auctioned in favour of the petitioner."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, who has moved this petition for leave to appeal, referred to the particulars of the property at the time it was put to auction and urged that the whole property comprised in section 14 ha been the subject-matter of the auction and that the petitioner had paid price of the full property and as such the Settlement authorities as also the High Court had erred in holding that the property put to auction was confined to only three quarters in the occupation of Rozi, Lai Din and Suba. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the extent of the property subject-matter of the auction had been decided by the revising/authority on 14-1-1974 and had been held to be limited to the three quarters in occupation of Rozi, Lai Din and Suba. The petitioner had not challenged that order which had thus become final against, him. Even otherwise, the question being one of fact, the High Court was not under any duty to interfere with the decision taken by the Settlement authorities. The petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal refused.