' The dispute in this case relates to a house bearing No, 36 in Ward No, 8, Street No, 3, Lyallpur. The house consists of two storeys. It was initially transferred to Umar Din the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 1 to 5 by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner concerned on 3rd December, 1959.
But Noor Muhammad the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners appealed against the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner whereupon the Additional Settlement Commissioner who heard the appeal, divided the house into three units on 24th March, 1960 and transferred one unit to Noor Muhammad, another unit to Umar Din and the third unit was later transferred to one Abdul Habib who is not a party to the present proceedings. That third unit is located on the first floor. The unit transferred to Umar Din consisted of the remainder of the first floor and a portion of the ground floor which was described by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner in the following terms : "the accommodation in front of the entrance at the end of the passage and which is at present with Bashir Ahmad."
' The rest of the ground floor was the party of the property that stood transferred to Noor Muhammad by the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner. This order was challenged in three revision petitions filed by Nur Muhammad, Umar Din and the said Bashir Ahmad separately but all the three petitions were dismissed, on 25th October, 1960. Then two writ petitions were filed in the High Court, one by Nur Muhammad and the other by Umar Din, but both the writ petitions were also dismissed on 22nd October, 1965. Thus the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, dated 24th March, 1960 attained finality. Thereupon the Deputy Settlement Commissioner proceeded to demarcate the property in accordance therewith who, on the 5th of June, 1970 decided that in accordance with the order, dated 24th March, 1960 of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Nur Muhammad was entitled to the entire ground floor with the exception of only one room at the end of the passage which should go to Umar Din. Aggrieved by this decision, the successor-in-interest of Umar Din appealed to the Additional Settlement Commissioner claiming two rooms on the ground floor. By this time both Nur Muhammad and Umar Din died and their heirs had replaced them. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner allowed the appeal on 30th October, 1971 and interpreted the order dated 24th March, 1960 of his predecessor-in-office to mean that the two rooms at the end of the passage had been transferred to Umar Din. But the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, dated 30th October, 1971 was not acceptable to the petitioners i,e,, the successors-in-interest of Nur Muhammad, and as such they preferred a revision petition which was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner on 10th November, 1973 who agreed with the interpretation placed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on the order, dated 24th March, 1960. Hence this writ petition.
2. Before examining the legal aspect of the case it is necessary to mention here that from the perusal of all the orders placed on file passed at various junctures by different settlement authorities, it is clear that the entrance of the building in question on the ground floor is separated from the main residential portion of the building by a long passage. At the end of the passage right in front of the entrance there is one room and at the end of the passage on the left hand side thereof is another room.
3. The dispute now between the petitioners and respondents Nos. 1 to 5 relates to the latter. So far as the first room is concerned, the petitioners agree that it has indisputably been transferred to respondents Nos. 1 to 5. The question for determination, therefore, is whether the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner rightly decided the question of ownership of the second room in favour of respondents Nos. 1 to 5 and whether the learned Settlement Commissioner rightly upheld that decision that is to say whether these two learned officers had the authority to decide the issue as they did in view of the order, dated 24th March, 1960.
' The answer to this question depends upon the interpretation of the order, dated 24th March, 1960.
In that order which was passed by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner after inspecting the building in question, it was mentioned that there was a long passage between the entrance and the main house and that there was one room at the end of the passage which was in possession of Bashir Ahmad. And then, while dividing the property, the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner declared that Umar Din (the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 1 to 5) would "get the accommodation in front of the entrance at the end of the passage and which is at present with Bashir Ahmad". It is thus clear that what was transferred to Umar Din on the ground floor was just one room at the end of the passage in front of the entrance and which was in possession of Bashir Ahmed. The other room which is now in dispute is not in front of entrance. It is on the left hand side, as one enters the passage, though adjacent to it. Further, from the earlier observation referred to above, it is clear that there was only one room in possession of Bashir Ahmad. It may, however, be mentioned here that the use of the word "accommodation" created some confusion in the minds of some of the settlement authorities that dealt with this property subsequent to the 24th of March, 1960 and they thought that there were two rooms in possession of Bashir Ahmad, and therefor, Umar Din was entitled to both of them. But the orders placed on record indicate that on one except the Deputy Settlement Commissioner who demarcated the building and decided the issue of division on the 5th of June, 1970 cared to inspect the house. After the inspection of the building in dispute he, too, came to the conclusion that only the room in front of the entrance at end of the passage was meant by the Additional Settlement Commissioner to be transferred to Umar Din. But the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner who respectively heard the appeal and revision against the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner disagreed with him without inspecting the building. But regardless of whether it was necessary for them to make a physical inspection of the building in dispute or not, I am of the view that they clearly erred in interpreting the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 24th March, 1960 and it was this error of interpretation which rendered their decisions invalid as they had no authority to decide the issue between the parties on a wrong interpretation of the order which had already attained. Finality.
4. I, therefore, allow this writ petition, declare the orders dated 30th October, 1971 and 10th November, 1973 of the Additional Settlement. Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner, respectively to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and uphold the order, dated 5th June, 1970 of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner with the result that only one room on the ground floor shall be deemed to have been transferred to respondents Nos. 1 to 5 and the remaining accommodation on the ground floor to the petitioners. In the circumstances of the case, however, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.