' M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-The property in dispute bearing No, P-188, Ward No, 7, Faisalabad, which had been in possession of Imam Din, father of Rehmat Ullah respondent No, 1, and Gulzar Muhammad, petitioner No, 1, was transferred jointly in equal shares in favour of both the occupants on 13-1-1960.
Rehmat Ullah had also filed. a C. H. Form but at the time of transfer he withdrew it in favour of his father. The transfer in favour of Imam Din was, however, later cancelled on account of his having already obtained a transfer elsewhere and his share was ordered to be put to auction. At this stage the petitioners applied under Scheme No, VIII for transfer of that share in their favour. Rehmat Ullah too made a similar application on the basis of his possession. Both the forms were however, rejected on 19-9-1969. Rehmat Ullah succeeded in revision on 3-3-1970 and in the result the share was transferred in his favour on 11-3-1970 and a P. T. D. Issued on 12-3-1970. This was challenged by the petitioners in revision, in the result of which the matter was remanded and in remand the transfer made in favour of Rehmat Ullah was set aside and the portion was transferred to the petitioners. This led to further litigation and ultimately both the parties were non-suited by the Settlement Commissioner on 6-10-1972 and the portion in question was ordered to be disposed of through auction. Both parties then filed separate writ petitions in the High Court but the one filed by the petitioners was dismissed while that of the respondent was accepted by the impugned judgment, dated 3-7-1979. The learned Judge came to the view that the Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer made in favour of the respondent after P. T. D. Had issued in his favour. The petitioners have now sought leave to appeal through this petition.
2. The view of law taken by the High Court may not be sustainable but we find otherwise no merit to justify an interference. The petitioners had been transferred half share of the property in 1960, with which they had been satisfied and as such they were not entitled to seek transfer of another portion of the property which had not been found in their possession. It is contended that Rehmat Ullah, having surrendered his right at the time of the initial transfer was no longer eligible for transfer. There is no force even in this contention because Rehmat Ullah had surrendered in favour of his father. In any case the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge his eligibility. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.