1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-In this petition shop No. 1699 situated in Sadar Bazar, Rawalpindi, is in dispute.
2. The petitioner, a local, claimed to be in possession of the shop and applied for its transfer and put in a N. C. H. Form. The shop was, however, transferred by the Settlement Commis--sioner to a claimant, respondent No. 2 Mst. Shahida Khatoon, on the 13th of August 1960. It may be mentioned here that this order of transfer has never been set aside by any competent authority.
3. On the 4th of May, 1962, the petitioner applied to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for the transfer of the said shop on the basis of his entitlement, but it was refused on the ground that the Settlement Commissioner had earlier passed orders transferring the shop to respondent Shahida Khatoon. The petitioner's appeal from this order was dismissed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner.
4. The petitioner went up in revision before the Settlement Commissioner and the revision application was dismissed on the 24 of July 1962, on the ground that the petitioner was a local and thus ineligible for the transfer of the shop. It was further held that the case relating to the transfer of the shop had already been decided previously.
5. The petitioner challenged this order of the Settlement Com--missioner to Writ Petition No. 2362/R of 1962 and the High Court allowed the petition and remanded the case to the Settlement Commissioner in the following terms :-th "For the reasons given above, the order dated the 25th of July 1962, passed by the Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, Annexure K of this petition, is quashed with direction that the revision application filed by the petitioner shall be heard again on merits. If the N. C. H. Form filed by the petitioner is to be rejected on the ground that he is a local, he shall be given an opportunity to adduce evidence in rebuttal of the allega--tions."
6. The Settlement Commissioner accordingly heard the matter and held that the petitioner was a local, and thus not entitled to the transfer of the shop. The petitioner's revisional application was accordingly rejected.
7. The petitioner once again approached the High Court on a Constitution petition. His counsel advanced the following two main contentions before the High Court :- "(1) That the petitioner is a displaced person and not a local and that the finding recorded by the learned Settlement Com--missioner is upon a misreading of the evidence, and
(2) That even if the petitioner was a local, the property being available under Scheme No. VIII, the same ought to have been transferred to him."
8. The learned Single Judge of the High Court so far as the first contention was concerned held that it covered a question of fact, and having been decided on a proper consideration of the evidence, cannot be interfered with in the Court's extraordinary jurisdiction. The Court did not hold that the finding was perverse.
9. As regards the second contention the learned Single Judge held that scheme No. VIII was not applicable inasmuch as the shop was not available property' having been previously trans--ferred to respondent Shahida Khatoon. The transfer to the respondent had not been cancelled, and the shop had not been resumed from her.
10. We may state that Scheme No. VIII was promulgated on the 17th of June 1965, and the shop was transferred to the respondent on the 13th of August 1960. Unless this transfer had been set aside, the shop was not available for transfer to any one else under the scheme.
11. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Settlement Commissioner did not fully carry out the directions of the High Court inasmuch as he did not re-open the entire question or transfer or the shop after having disregarded the earlier transfer in favour of the said respondent. It does not appear from the order of the Settlement Commissioner that the petitioner ever advanced this contention before the Settlement Commissioner. The impugned order of the High Court also does not show that it was raised there either. We thus see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. The petition is dismissed.'