1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal seeks to challenge an order made by the learned Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court on 7-11-1972, whereby he has dismissed a constitution petition moved by the petitioner, Abdul Hakim, in respect of the transfer of a quarter attached to Bungalow No. 27, situate on .The Mall, Peshawar Cantt.
2. There has been prolonged litigation between the parties in respect of this property. In an order made by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on the 20th of January 1960, the entire property was described as consisting of six residential portions. The portion now in dispute was transferred to respondent No. 6, and the L. H. Form filed by the petitioner, Abdul Hakim, was rejected. Nine appeals, including one by the present petitioner, were filed against this order. They were accepted by the Addi--tional Settlement Commissioner, by his order dated 31-3-1960, and the case was remanded to the Deputy Settlement Commis--sioner for a fresh decision by treating each portion as a separate Independent residential unit.
3. On remand, the matter was reconsidered by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 28th of June 1960, and he held that the portion now in dispute, belonging to an evacuee named, Brij Nath Annand, consisted of the main house occupied by A. S. Ansari and servant quarters occupied by five other persons. He observed that as the occupant of the main portion, A.
4. S. Ansari was the only claimant displaced person, who was entitled for the transfer of this entire house, and the L. H. Forms submitted by the others were, therefore, rejected. Dissatisfied with this order the petitioner filed an appeal which was, however, dismissed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 26-10-60, holding that the quarter in dispute was a part of the residential house owned by Brij Nath Annand, and could not, therefore, be transferred as a separate house to a local.
5. Five revision petitions were filed against this appellate order by the unsuccessful applicants for the various portions of the property. They were jointly disposed of by the learned Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 17th of January 1961, which had the effect of transferring the quarter in dispute to its occupant, namely, the present petitioner.
6. Respondent No. 6, A. S. Ansari, filed a second revision petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner on the 24th of April 1961. It was dismissed in default on 28-11-62 by Ch. Sultan Muhammad Khan, a Settlement Commissioner, exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. An application was then made for the restoration of the revision petition. It came up for hearing before the learned Chief Settlement Commis--sioner on 6-9-1963, on which date objection was taken to the locus standi of A. S. Ansari on the ground that he was neither the transferee of the property in dispute, nor did he hold any power of attorney from his brother Abdul Ghaffar Ansari and Abdul Jabbar Ansari who were the transferees. The matter was -ad--journed to 25-10-63 for further examination of this objection. The petitioner has not placed on the record the order made by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 25-10-63, or on any sub--sequent date regarding the restoration of the respondents' second revision petition, but there is a final order made by the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner on 25-2-1964, by which the entire case was remanded to the Settlement Commissioner for re--examination and a fresh decision on several questions including the question whether the portion in dispute constituted a separate independent residential unit, and whether A. S, Ansari was competent to pursue the matter.
7. In pursuance of this order of remand the matter was examined at some length by the learned Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 28th of May 1965. He came to the conclusion that respondent, A. S. Ansari, was a duly authorised agent to act on behalf of his brothers for whom he had filed a claim on C. H. Form, and that the quarter in dispute occupied by the petitioner, Abdul Hakim, was a part and parcel of the residential house occupied by the Ansari brothers, and therefore, it had to be transferred to them.
8. This order of the Settlement Commissioner was challenged by the petitioner by means of a petition under Article 98 of the 1962= Constitution, but the challenge failed, as the learned Chief Justice held, by his order dated the 7th of November 1972, that the quarter in dispute not being a separate unit, could not be trans--ferred to the petitioner against his L. H. Form.
9. In support of this petition, Sh. Muhammad Shafi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions :-
(a) that the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner, who accepted the second revision petition of the respondent by his order dated the 25th of February 1964, had no jurisdiction to do so as his powers of revision had been taken away by Ordin--ance Il of 1962 with effect from the 13th of January 1962, and the situation was not saved by amending Ordinance X111 of 1962, with the result that the subsequent order passed in remand by the learned Settlement Commissioner on the 28th of May 1965, was a nullity in the eye of law ;
(b) that the quarter in dispute had never been applied for by the Ansari brothers in their C H form, and could not therefore, be transferred to them ; and
(c) that fn any case under the revised Scheme No. VIII, enforced on the 17th of June 1965, the petitioner was the only person entitled to the transfer of this quarter.
10. After hearing the learned counsel at some length, we have formed the view that there is no merit in any of these submissions. As regards the jurisdiction of the learned Chief Settlement Com-- missioner to entertain and decide the second revision petition of the respondent, we find that no such objection was taken before this Officer, nor even before the learned Settlement Commissioner who heard the case after remand and passed the impugned order dated the 28th of May 1965. In any case, it is conceded that the records of the revision petition had been summoned before the 13th of January 1962, and therefore, the pending proceedings were saved in terms of the amending Ordinance X111 of 1962. The contention that the Chief Settlement Commissioner became functus officio after he had dismissed the revision petition in default on 28-I1-62 overlooks the fact that once the revision petition is treated as a pending proceeding in terms of Ordinance XIII of 1962, then its disposal will be governed by the ordinary procedure applicable to such revision petitions, which would include the restoration of a petition dismissed in default. It is true that on 6-9-63 the Chief Settlement Commissioner had adjourned the matter to 25-10-63 without examining the locus stands of A. S. Ansari, and it is also true that on the present record there is no order formally restoring the petitioner. But the final order made by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 25-2-64 clearly shows that on earlier date he must have restored the petition to a full bearing. This order recites that all the parties and their counsel were present, and from this recital it can safely be presumed that if the revision petition had been restored, the present petitioner would have objected to its hearing on merits. The mere fact that the petitioner has not chosen to place on the record the order made by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 25-10-63 or on a subsequent date regarding the restoration of the petition does not mean that no such order was ever passed.
11. The final disposal of the second revision petition on 25-2-1964 is, in our view, a clear proof that the revision petition must have been restored on an earlier date.
12. The next contention, namely, that the respondents had never applied for this quarter, is clearly untenable in view of the definition of the term house as given in clause (4) of section 2 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, iwhich contemplates that a house includes gardens, garages and outhouses appurtenant thereto even though they may be in the possession of persons other than those who are in possession of the main house. Such being the case, an applicant for the entire house does not have to specifically mention that also wants the transfer of the garden, grounds, garages or out--houses, appurtenant to the house itself. The quarter in dispute having been found, on spot inspection, by the Settlement Commis--sioner to be a part of the main house occupied by the Ansari brothers, it was not at all necessary for them to specifically mention in their C. H. Forms that they also wanted the transfer of this servant quarter.
13. The last contention, in relation to the revised Settlement Scheme No. VIII, was not pressed by the learned counsel, as it was discovered that the revised scheme was enforced only on the 17th of June 1965, whereas the quarter in dispute had been finally transferred to the respondents on the 28th of May 1965.
14. For the foregoing reasons it seems to us that the learned Settlement Commissioner was right in rejecting the L. H. Form of the petitioner, and the High Court was similarly right in refusing to interfere in the matter. The petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.