1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The question whether the petitioner could be deemed to be in occupation of the house so as to be eligible for its transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VII arises in this case.
2. The learned judge in the High Court has held against the petitioner on this point relying on his earlier decision in Muhammad Shafi v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 9 others W. P. No. 394-R/1979 wherein reliance was placed on Mst.
3. Ambo Jan and 2 others v. Assistant Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Abbottabad and 6 others (PLD 1975 Pesh. 244) and Abdul Rahman v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner (PLD 1977 Lah. 576).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these decisions a not apposite and his case is similar to the case of Dewana v. Shah Muhammad (PLD 1918 Queue 12).
5. After hearing the learned counsel we find prima facie force in this submission.
6. Security Rs. 2,500.
7. Petitioner not to be dispossessed if he is still in possession.
8. The appeal to be made ready on the present record with liberty to the sties to add further documents.
9. M. Z. M. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.