1. S. A. RAHMAN, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against a judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan passed by a Bench of two Judges under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court, affirming an order of a learned Single Judge of that Court. The relevant facts are as follows.
2. The petitioner who claimed to be a "displaced person" from India, was transferred a house, in that capacity, by order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. He had no claim as regards property abandoned in India, but on the strength of his being a "displaced person", this transfer order was made. On appeal by an interested party, however, the Additional Settlement Commis--sioner held that he was a local and was not entitled to the transfer of this property which was then transferred to Syed Jaffar Hussain Shah; who was a claimant displaced person. The petitioner failed in revision before the Settlement Commissioner and the Chief Settlement Commissioner. These orders were challenged before the High Court. It was held by the learned Judges that the question whether Syed Haider Shah was a displaced person, required investigation into question of fact, namely, whether after his alleged migration, he had permanently taken up residence in Bombay and whether he left that place on account of civil disturbances or out of fear of such disturbances. The examination of such questions, it was found, was not permissible in jurisdiction under Article 98 of the Constitution. As the finding of the higher Settlement authorities was against the petitioner on this point, it was held that no interference with those orders, was called for.
3. It was argued by Mr. Muhammad Sadiq on behalf of the petitioner in the High Court and before us, that the Additional Settlement Commissioner, in appeal, had incorrectly summarized a statement made by the petitioner before the Assistant Settlement Commissioner and had therefore been misled into passing the impugned order. This point was duly taken by the petitioner before the Chief Settlement Commissioner in revision and apparently that authority came to an identical conclusion on the basis of that statement in spite of the fact that certain inaccuracies in the summing-up by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, had been pointed out to him. We have seen that statement of the petitioner at page 75 and are of the opinion that the inference drawn from It, could have been legitimately arrived at, even if allowance was made for the inaccuracies that he had crept into the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner. On the alleged ground of misreading of evidence, therefore, no case was made out for interference by the High Court.
4. Mr. Muhammad Sadiq also invited our attention to the fact that the Additional Settlement Commissioner held that the petitioner was a local and not a displaced person, but while concluding the case he also observed that even if he was a displaced person, he could not be preferred to the opposite-party who was a claimant. Learned counsel contests the correctness of this view. We do not feel it necessary to go into this question as we are satisfied that on the first issue no ground for interference with the orders of the Settlement authorities existed.
5. This petition is dismissed.