1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the former High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 9th March 1966, in L. P. A. No. 227 of 1961. By this judgment, the appeal of the appellant was dismissed with no order as to costs.
2. The dispute between the parties is in respect of property No. 3-S-51,.Blcck No. 6, Sargodha. It consists of a shop on the ground floor and a choubara on top. The appellant's husband Muhammad Jamal Khan was allottee of the choubara. On the basis of the allotment of the husband, the appellant, who is a claimant displaced person, filed C. H. Form for the transfer of the said choubara. The ground floor is in possession of the respondent No. 2 and by the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, dated the 30th September 1953, his possession was recognized by the Rehabilitation Department. Respondent No. 2 applied for the transfer of the shop on N. C. H.
3. Form. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, by order dated the 21st December 1959, transferred the choubara to the appellant and had kept in abeyance the transfer of the shop.
4. Both the appellant and the respondent challenged this order in appeal. The appellant contended that the property being indivisible should have been transferred to her on C. H. Form. The respondent's case was that he being in. Possession of the shop was entitled to its transfer. The Additional Settlement Commissioner, by order dated the 27th January 1960, transferred the entire property to the appellant. The respondent challenged this order in revision before the Settlement Commissioner which was dismissed by order dated the 21st March 1960. Thereupon, the respondent further challenged this order before the Chief Settlement Commissioner in second revision. The delegatee of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, by order dated the 13th April 1961, divided the property into two portions; upheld the transfer of the choubara in favour of the appellant and transferred the shop in favour of the respondent. The appellant challenged this order in writ petition No. 423/R of 1961 which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on the 4th July 1961. The appellant filed an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed on the 9th March 1966, The appellant challenged this order in this appeal before us.
5. Special leave was granted to the appellant by this Court by order dated the 24th June 1966, to consider the question if the property is in commercial area, it should have been treated as a shop in its entirety in accordance with the definition of `shop' in clause 2(12) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 and paragraph 2 (2) (c) of the Memo--randum No. Comp-Reh-59/5242, dated the 22nd October 1959.
6. Mr. Fazl-i-Mahmood, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the property is a composite one and it should have been declared as a shop and transferred to the appellant in its entirety. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied on section 2(t2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed us. The delegatee of the Chief Settlement Commissioner has divided the property into two portions and has transferred those portions to the persons who are in possession of them. This procedure is also in accordance with the provision of section 2(12) of the Displaced Persons Act.
7. The contention of Mr. Fazal-i-Mahmood that the delegatee of the Chief Settlement Commissioner has not followed the instructions laid down in Memorandum appearing at pages 68 and 69 of the Settlement Manual (Old Edition), is also not well founded. As pointed out by the High Court, these instructions stood modified by instructions appearing at page 92 of the Manual. The modified instructions read as under:--- "It has been reported that the instructions contained in this Office Memorandum No. Comp-Reh/59 dated the 22nd October 1959, on the above subject have created certain practical difficulties particularly in cases where a single claimant in occupation of a portion of the building has applied for the transfer of a complete building to him consisting of more than one house or shop. The Chief Settlement Commissioner has, therefore, on reconsideration decided that the Deputy Settlement Commissioners may use their discretion and if they are satisfied that the transfer of the whole building to one person will result in serious hardship and dislocate other persons occupying the same building they may transfer only the portion in occu--pation of such person if it has an independent access and transfer the other residential or business units in the building to other persons entitled to their transfer."
8. Thus it is quite clear that the instructions issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner are of a directory nature and discretion has been given to the Settlement Authorities to divide the property and to transfer the portions in possession of the parties to them.
9. We are satisfied that the Settlement Authorities have divided the property in accordance with law and instructions and no exception can be taken to it. Even otherwise substantial justice has been done between the parties, and there is no ground to interfere with the order of the delegatee of the Chief Settlement Commissioner.