1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-The petitioners' father was a claimant displaced person and he had applied for transfer of the house in question. Two other persons, namely, respondent Mohammad Boota and Khushi Mohammad also applied for the transfer of the house, the former being a claimant. On the 12th November 1959, the entire house was transferred to Haji Sher Mohammad (father of the petitioners), whereupon the said respondents preferred an appeal and the Adct4ional Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 21st December 1959, divided the property and transferred to Khushi Mohammad the room in his possession and drew a line of demarcation between the portions of respondent Mohammad Boota and Haji Slier Mohammad.
2. Respondent Mohammad Boota filed a revision petition impleading respondent Khushi Mohammad only as a party. The Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 28th July 1960, disposed of the revisional petition and made certain adjustment affecting the portion transferred to Haji Sher Mohammad. Haji Sher Mohammad filed a writ petition on the ground that the Settlement Commissioner had passed the --order without affording him an opportunity of being heard. The writ petition was allowed and the case was remanded to the Settlement Commissioner for fresh decision. Haji Sher Mohammad had also filed a revision petition against the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner whereby he set aside the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferring the entire house to Haji Sher Mohammad. Eventually the Settlement Commissioner passed an order on the 3rd of September 1970, dividing the property between the sons of Haji Sher Mohammad who had died in the meantime and Mohammad Boota but excluded Khushi Mohammad. The petitioners who are sons of Haji Sher Mohammad made a writ application before the High Court but the application was dismissed. The petitioners' Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed in limine.
3. The property in question having already been divided by the Settlement Authorities, the High Court obviously could not inter--fere with the division of the property. It cannot be said that the order of division passed by the Settlement Authority was without lawful authority. The learned Judges of the High Court held that on the division of the property by the Settlement Commissioner there came into being two houses and the respondent, although he applied for the transfer of the room in his possession, became entitled to the transfer of the entire portion which was declared as one house.
4. Respondent Mohammad Boota was transferred the portion in his possession along with some other portion of the house which constituted upon division as one house and as such no exception could. Be taken to the order of the Settlement Authorities.
5. We accordingly see no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court. The petition is dismissed.