ANWARUL HAQ, C.J.--This petition seeks review of the judgment of this Court dated the 13th of December, 1974, whereby civil appeal No.35 of 1973 instituted by the present petitioner to challenge an order made by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court on 11-5-1972 in respect of the transfer of a residential property in New Anarkali, Lahore, was dismissed.
The relevant facts are that the petitioner filed Form N.C.H. In 1959 for the transfer of the residential portion In his possession, describing the property as Raja Brothers Building, and stating against column No.9 therefore that the respondents Rafiquddin and Shafiquddin were also in possession of a portion of the building with his permission as he was the allottee of the entire portion. From the copy of the NCH form placed on the record, it is not readily ascertainable whether he mentioned the property number, but subsequently his case was that he had applied for property bearing No. S. 74. R.66. The respondents Rafiquddin and Shafiquddin also applied for the transfer of the property/ portion in their possession on form CE, as they were claimants displaced persons, and they described the property as bearing No.S. III,
21. S. 7, but stated against column No.10 of their application that a part of the property was in the possession of the petitioner Nasiruddin alongwith to other persons by the name of Itehad Ali and Hashmatullah. It appears that the NCH form of the petitioner was rejected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 19-12-1959, and the entire residential portion of the property in dispute was transferred to the respondents on the ground that they were claimants. The petitioner did not challenge this order for several years, but on his inquiry a formal communication was sent to him by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on the 26th of January, 1962, that the residential portion in dispute had been transferred to the respondents, and that the transfer order had been upheld in appeal by the Additional Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the Ist of July, 1960. The petitioner again slept over the matter for more than 6) years until the 31st of August 1968, when he obtained a copy of the transfer order. He then moved a miscellaneous application before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 26-4- 1971, and succeeded in obtaining an order from the Settlement Commissioner on 21-20-1971 remanding the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner with the direction that the NCH form f of the petitioner may be disposed of.
The respondents challenged this order of remand by filing a writ petition in the Lahore High Court which was accepted, and the transfer of the property in their favour was restored. The petitioner then filed an appeal under the Letters Patent which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on 11-5-1972. Civil Appeal N o.35 of 1973 was directed against this order of the High Court and, as already stated, was dismissed by this Court on 13-12-1974. It was held that there was, indeed, a confusion regarding the correct number of the property in dispute, but it was resolved by the Settlement authorities by spot inspection, and that the appellant had slept over his rights for long periods, and was, therefore, not entitled to any relief. It was observed that he had failed to explain why he did not agitate for 61 years after being informed on 26th of January, by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner that the property had been transferred to the respondents.
Review is sought on the following grounds.
(a) That as the appeal was heard on the available record by dispensing with the provisions of Order 14 of the Supreme Court Rules and Orders, the entire record of the Settlement department as well as of the High Court was not available to this Court and thus the petitioner was seriously prejudiced;
(b) that no notice of the receipt of the original record of the department in the Supreme Court was given to the petitioner as required by Order 14 aforesaid, and therefore, consideration of the case was not as thorough or complete as was necessary; and
(c) that admittedly the property applied for by the respondents, and transferred to them, bore No. S. III.
21. S. 7, and accordingly, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had no power to change it to property No. S.64. R.76.
There is no merit in these submissions. From the order granting leave to appeal it is clear that the appeal was to be made ready on the present record, but no grievance was made of this fact by the petitioner or his counsel when this direction was included in the leave granting order; nor was any such objection raised when the appeal came up before this Court for final hearing on the 13th of December, 1974. There is no indication on the record that the petitioner felt any difficulty in explaining his case to the Court in the absence of the record now mentioned by Mr. Almas Ali. The grievance as to the letter of notice is clearly misconceived in the light of the direction contained in the leave granting order.
As to the question of the identity of the property in dispute, it was found by the Settlement authorities after spot inspection that both the contending parties were in possession, of the same property, and its correct number was S. 64, R. 76, and property No. S. III,
21. S. 7 was a burnt vacant site. This point was fully present to the mind of this Court and was specifically dealt with in the judgment under review.
However, in order to satisfy ourselves further in this behalf, we have again perused the NCH and the CH forms submitted respectively by the petitioner and the respondents, and find, as already noted, that both the parties had mentioned against the relevant column the possession of the other party.
It therefore becomes clear that the parties were in possession of different portions of the same residential premises. It was, therefore, immaterial whether the correct number of the property was one or the other. The respondents being claimants displaced persons were rightly given preference over the petitioner, who was a non-claimant.
There is also the further fact, as noticed by us earlier, that the petitioner was guilty of serious laches in pursuing the matter, even when he had been informed in 1962 that the property in dispute had been transferred to the respondents. For all these reasons, the civil appeal in question was rightly dismissed, and no justification has been made out for review. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.