1. ' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The dispute in this petition relates to a composite property which had two shops on the ground-floor and a 'chobara' on the first-floor. One of the shops was with the petitioner and the other was in the occupation of Abdul Aziz, respondent No,2. The petitioner was a claimant while Abdul Aziz was a non-claimant. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred the entire property to the petitioner. Abdul Aziz filed an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner but without any success. He then filed a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner. The learned Settlement Commissioner held that the shop in possession of Abdul Aziz could conveniently be transferred to him. He made an order accordingly. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the order of the Settlement Commissioner which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. He then filed a Letters Patent Appeal which too failed. He now seeks leave to appeal.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we are of the opinion that the order of the Settlement Commissioner was eminently just and fair. We therefore, do not think that this is a fit case for interference by this Court. Leave is refused.