1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-This leave to appeal petition is directed against judgment, dated 11- 3-1984 of the Lahore High Court ; whereby, the petitioner was refused the relief in its Constitutional jurisdiction in respect of the transfer under the Settlement Law of a chobara on shops which stood transferred to the respondent No. 1.
2. ' The facts taken from the Letters Patent judgment of the High Court are that "An Assistant Settlement Commissioner by order, dated 7-12-1959 transferred shop No, 370 alongwith Chobara, in dispute, in favour of respondent No. 1. By a separate order, dated 27-11-1959, the Assistant Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner directed issuance of Appendix 'X' for the transfer of 1/3 of (another) Chobara No, U/318 in favour of Messrs Abdul Hafeez, Abdul Hamid and Muhammad Hassan and rejected the form of Fateh Din. Respondent No. 1 challenged this order in appeal. The appeal came up for hearing before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Zone-II, , Rawalpindi, who by order dated 11-2-1910 re-distributed the transfer of various units, as a result of which the upper portion of building No, U/317-319, transferred to the respondent, was included in the list of earmarking and in lieu thereof upper portion of Shop No, U/370-371 was transferred to him. The appellant herein challenged the aforesaid order by means of an appeal, dated 28-7-1965 before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi. The memorandum of appeal was accompanied by an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908), supported by an affidavit. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal was sought on the ground that the appellant herein came to know of the order, dated 11-2-1960 of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 20- 5-1965 from respondent No. 1. The appeal was dismissed as barred by time, as well as, on merits inter alia on the ground that the N. C. H. Form filed by the petitioner on 16-5-1960 for the transfer of the property, in dispute, was not entertainable, in that, the property, in question, was not available for transfer, having already been transferred to respondent No. 1. The Settlement Commissioner upheld this order and dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner herein on 25-1-1968.
3. Aggrieved by the orders of the Settlement Authorities, the petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, but his writ petition was dismissed in limine on 7-10-1968, with the remarks that "the view taken by the Settlement Authorities cannot be said to be erroneous in any manner, supported as it is, by a Division Bench of this Court reported in the P L. D 1965 Lah.
384. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Chobara should not have been considered as part of the shop. The contention has no force. The Settlement Authorities have jurisdiction with regard to premises of the present kind to treat them as one unit. The writ petition has no merits and is dismissed in limine."
4. Various contentions were raised before the Letters Patent Bench of the High Court but the petitioner's appeal was dismissed on the ground that when he filed his N. C. H. Form for chohara in dispute, the same already stood transferred to respondent No. 1 on his C. S. Form. Further that he had no locus standi to criticise the manner in which the chobara in dispute stood transferred to the said respondent.
5. ' In order to overcome the aforestated rather difficult position for the petitioner learned counsel, vehemently contended that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction to transfer the chobara to respondent No. 1 when admittedly the said transferee was not in possession thereof nor he had in his C. S. Form desired the transfer of the said chobara instead he had sought the transfer of the commercial unit underneath the chobara only. Assuming for the sake of argument that the respondent No. 1 was not in possession of nor had he sought transfer of the chobora in dispute, even then it would not be possible to agree with the learned counsel in so far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned.
6. ' It is not disputed that the chobara in dispute forms the first floor on the commercial unit which was in possession of the respondent and for which he had submitted a C. S. Form. Even if the chobara had been allotted a separate number the building would fall within the definition of `shop' as given in paragraph No, 2(12) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 (XXVIII of 1958) which reads as follows : "shop" means evacuee business premises of any value in an urban area or of the value of ten thousand rupees or more in a rural area together with godowns or store houses, if any, attached or appurtenant to such premises, but does not include any building situated within the premises of an industrial concern, or a building or premises declared under paragraph 16 of the Schedule to be a big mansion or hotel : ' Provided that where any building or premises not so declared consist of more than one business unit, and such units are in the possession of several persons, then, unless the Chief Settlement Commissioner orders otherwise, the whole of such building or premises shall be deemed to be a shop : ' Provided further that where any such building or premises consist of both residential and business units, the Chief Settlement Commissioner may order that the whole of such building or premises, or such part or parts thereof as may be specified in the order, shall be deemed to be a shop or a house ;"
7. ' The building in question admittedly consists of more than one business unit and they were in possession, as stated by the learned counsel, of different persons. That being so the whole of such building or premises could under law be deemed to be a shop though the Deputy Settlement Commissioner as delegatee of the Chief Settlement Commissioner has the jurisdiction under the above-quoted second proviso to declare that the whole building or such part or parts thereof as might have been specified in the order would be deemed to be a shop or a house. The D. S. C. Was competent not to declare the separate units in the building as shops and house (the chobara as an independent unit). He in exercise of the power conferred on him treated it as one unit i. e. a shop and transferred it accordingly on the C. S. Form of respondent No. 1. There was nothing illegal about this transfer nor the D. S. C. Exceeded his jurisdiction. On facts it is not denied that the whole unit including the chobara treated by the D. S. C. As shop, as discussed above lawfully was partly in possession of the respondent. It also cannot be denied that he had sought the transfer of "the shop". The shop which as visualised in this case consisted of the business unit on the ground floor and also the chobara on the first floor. The two requirements pointed out by the learned counsel also stood satisfied in this case. His main contention accordingly has no force.
8. ' Regarding the power of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner to transfer the disputed property or for that matter any alleged forgery in Appendix 'X'. It is inconsequential when it is found that the initial order of transfer of the portion in dispute was in fact passed by the D. S. C. Whether the D. S. C.
9. Should or should not have passed this order on an appeal filed in connection with another property also loses significance. Firstly, because the petitioner has no locus standi in this behalf. Secondly, because the matter alongwith the relevant transfer from having been noticed by the D. S. C. He could have passed the order regarding the disposal of the property. Regarding right of notice to the petitioner, it would suffice to observe firstly in the circumstances of this case he had no locus standi with regard to the transfer of a property which stood finally transferred and disposed of several months before the filing of his form which also has held by the Additional Settlement Commissioner had some technical defects. And secondly even if the form was validly filed, the petitioner slept over the matter for nearly five years after the disposal of the property. And that is why this appeal was also considered as time-barred. In these amongst other circumstances we are satisfied that the D. S. C. Was not required to issue notice to the petitioner before the transfer of the chobara in dispute to the respondent.
10. ' After hearing the learned counsel at some length we do not find any force in any of his arguments in this petition. It is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. This petition is accordingly dismissed.