1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-- This order will govern Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No,110 of 1982 and Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No,111 of 1982, as both of them have been filed by the same parties and relate to the same property.
2. ' The property in question is a composite double storey building bering No,E/2544-A Sua Bazar, Lahore. There are three shops on the ground-floor and a residential portion on its top. The shops on the ground-floor are in possession of (1) Abdul Majid (Respondent No,3 in C.P.S.L.A.No,110/1982); who has since transferred it to Muhammad Javed (Respondent No,1 in C.P.S.L.A.No,110/1982); (2) Babu;
(3) Nazir Ahmad (Respondent No,1 in C.P.S.L.A.No,111/1982).
3. ' On the commencement of the settlement operations, only Nazir Ahmad, (Respondent No,3 in C.P.S.L.A.No,111 of 1982), could claim transfer of the shop in his possession and was, accordingly, transferred the same. None of the other occupants, namely, the predecessor of the petitioners in both the civil petitions (namely, Mst. Ashraf Sultana) nor Abdul Majid nor Babu, the occupants of the two other shops on the ground-floor, were entitled to claim transfer; hence the undisposed of property was to be disposed of by open public auction.
4. ' The case of the petitioners is that their mother Mst.Ashraf Sultana purchased the entire available property in auction i,e, not only the top floor which was in her possession but also the two shops below which were occupied by Abdul Majid and Babu.
5. ' Protracted litigation has taken place between the parties as to the extent of the property purchased by Mst.Ashraf Sultana through auction as also between her and on Mst. Kubra; the occupant of the adjoining house in view of a confusion that arose with regard to the identity of the property actually transferred to the two said ladies. Ultimately, it has been found that Mst.Ashraf Sultana was transferred property bearing No,E/2544-A, but only its top-floor which was actually in her possession. So far as the ground floor portion is concerned, it has been found that while Nazeer Ahmad was transferred the shop in his possession on his N.C.S. Form, Abdul Majid was entitled to transfer of the shop in his possession under the subsequent schemes because the same was not included in the property auctioned in favour of Mst.Ashraf Sultana.
6. We have heard Mr.A.R.Shoukat, in support of both these petitions, as also Sh.Muhammad Aslam, Advocte High Court, who was specially permitted to appear I n this case since he had represented Respondents 3 & 4 in C.P.S.L.A.No,110 of 1982 before the High Court and have reached the conclusion that the judgment of the High Court is not only fair & just but quite proper and correct. It, therefore, requires no interference.
7. ' Both these petitions must, therefore, fail and are, accordingly, dismissed hereby.