1. ' JAVID IOBAL, J.--Dr. Akhtar Ali appellant has filed Civil Appeal No. 287 of 1980 and Hakim Abdul Latif appellant has filed Civil Appeal No. 288 of 1980. Since these two appeals are directed against a consolidated judgment dated 11 July, 1975 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in two writ petitions concerning the same evacuee property No. S-52-R-11 situate on Nisbat Road, Lahore, these arc being taken up and disposed of together.
2. ' The relevant facts are that the disputed property consists of three shops and some residential rooms on the ground floor, a residential portion on the first floor, another residential portion on the second floor, and some rooms in the form of "Barsatis" on the third floor.
3. ' Dr. Akhtar Ali appellant is a local who is operating a medical clinic in the three shops on the ground floor which have been transferred to him. He applied first to the Central Government and then to the Provincial Government for the transfer of the residential portion of the ground floor under section 10(2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 on the ground that it was adjacent to his clinic and it would be in the public interest if this portion was transferred to him for the expansion of his clinical facilities. His request was rejected by the Settlement Authorities for the main reason that the residential portion on the ground floor which had never been in his possession could not be transferred to him under section 10(2) of the. Act on the ground advanced by him. Furthermore, the Settlement Authorities had throughout held that the residential part of the property in question was one indivisible unit and it had been transferred as such to Mst. Siddiqan, a claimant displaced person, and predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 1 to 7.
4. ' As for Hakim Abdul Latif appellant, who is a non-claimant displaced person, he is stated to be in possession of some rooms on the third floor of the building, which are described as "Barsatis" in the Settlement record. He claims' that in respect of the same he had submitted NCH form on 7th August, 1959 and that there did exist an entry in the Chief Settlement Commissioner's register to that effect. But the finding recorded by some of the Settlement Authorities is that no such form was available on the record and therefore he had no locus standi to claim the transfer in his favour.
5. ' Except for the three shops on the ground floor which stand transferred to Dr. Akhtar Ali appellant, the rest of the entire residential part of the building was transferred to Mst. Siddiqan now deceased and represented by respondents Nos. 1 to 7, as one indivisible unit.
6. ' Aggrieved of the decisions of the Settlement Authorities, both the appellants filed separate writ petitions which were dismissed by learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore with the following observations: "The residential portion in dispute was transferred to a claimant displaced person, Mst. Siddiqan, for the first time, on 18th January, 1950. It is more than 15 and a half ycars that she, in her life time, and, now her successors, are being dragged into litigation. The matter is simple and disposable on the facts already found. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the Settlement Department to remand the matter cannot be acceded to without leading to another round of litigation which is not commensurate with expeditious administration of justice. Therefore, I proceed to decide these petitions.
7. ' As far as the first petition (W.P. No. 382/R/70) of Hakim Abdul Latif is concerned, the same stands concluded by concurrent findings of fact, repeatedly arrived at, that he had filed no form and, had made a statement to that effect. These findings of fact were arrived at on the basis of the record before the Settlement Authorities. Even if erroneous, these are not susceptible to be interfered with in these proceedings especially when the residential portion stands transferred to a claimant displaced person, Mst. Siddiyan and Permanent Transfer Deed had also been issued. In these circumstances, the petition filed by Hakim Abdul Latif cannot succeed, and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties, however, to bear their own costs.
8. ' As regards the second petition filed by Dr. Akhtar Ali (W.P. No. 708/R/70), it need only be said that he had not applied for the portion now sought under any of the Settlement Schemes. His application under section 10(2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 for transfer of the portion for extension of his clinic stands rejected by the competent authority. Neither he had any right to challenge the order of rejection, nor, had he done so.
9. Therefore, he is not an applicant in the eyes of law for the transfer of the residential portion permanently transferred to a claimant displaced person for extension of his clinic. In these circumstances, he has no right to claim the transfer of the disputed portion, or, question the transfer in favour of a claimant displaced person, or, to maintain this petition. Therefore, the same is also dismissed but the parties are left to bear their own costs in the circumstances."
10. Leave to appeal was granted in these connected matters in order to consider as to whether the Settlement Authorities have exercised their discretion in judicious manner in declaring the residential part of the entire building in A question as one indivisible unit while transferring it to the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 1 to 7, or whether they have acted arbitrarily and capriciously in treating the residential portions on the different floors of the building as one indivisible unit.
11. ' It was argued by learned counsel for the appellants that although the residential portions on the different floors of the building were distinct units, and that Mst. Siddiqan had applied for the transfer of only the residential portion in her possession on the first floor in form CH, the Settlement authorities transferred to her the residential portions of all the floors of the building by declaring them to be one indivisible unit, with the result that at present 16 bedrooms, 6 kitchens and 8 bath- rooms stand transferred to respondents Nos. 1 to 7 as one house. It was further submitted that the Lahore High Court had erred in refusing to interfere in this matter, as the orders made by the Settlement Authorities were clearly arbitrary and capricious and amounted to an abuse of the discretion vesting in them under the relevant law.
12. ' It was pointed out by learned counsel that Mst. Siddiqan had applied for the transfer only of the portion which was in her possession, namely the residential portion on the first floor, and that she had not applied for the transfer of the residential part of the entire building. It was submitted that she had, in the CH form, mentioned the monthly rent of the portion desired to be transferred as Rs.
13. 36 per mensem, whereas the rental value of the entire building came to Rs. 202 per mensem.
14. ' In reply to these arguments, it was submitted by learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 7 that the finding of fact arrived at by the Settlement Authorities was that there had been some interpolations in the CH form submitted by Mst. Siddigan by addition in it of the words "portion in possession". It was argued that Mst. Siddigan and her son Haji Muhammad Suleman respondent No. 1 both were in possession of the first floor of the building for residential purposes, and that Mst.
15. Siddigan applied for the transfer in form CH stating that her son did not want to take the property. It was further submitted that she had applied for the transfer of the residential part of the entire building as a claimant displaced person, as .Opposed to a non-claimant and a local, although in the CH form she had mentioned the monthly rent of the portion in her possession as Rs.
36. It was pointed out by learned counsel that it was evident from the record that the Settlement Authorities, after spot inspection, had arrived at the conclusion that the residential part of the entire building was one indivisible unit to the transfer of which Mst. Siddigan was entitled. It was submitted that if all the officers of the Settlement Department have treated the residential portions of the different floors of the building as constituting one residential unit, such a finding could not be interfered with by the High Court or by the Supreme Court.
16. ' It was argued that so far as the case of Dr. Akhtar Ali appellant was concerned, he had no locus standi to file the writ petition as well as the present appeal when he did not claim the transfer of residential portion now sought by him under any of the Settlement Schemes, and when his application for the transfer of the same under section 10(2) of the Act for extension of his clinic stood rejected by the competent authority. It was submitted that he did not challenge the order of rejection, and that therefore it was correctly held by the High Court that he was not applicant in the eyes of law for the transfer of the residential portion for extension of his clinic which had already been permanently transferred to a claimant displaced person.
17. ' As for Hakim Abdul Latif appellant, it was submitted that whatever be his contention, he is a non- claimant and his case stands concluded by findings of fact repeatedly arrived at by the Settlement Authorities, that he had filed no form for the transfer of portion in his possession and that he had also made a statement to that effect. These findings of fact cannot be interfered with particularly when the portion in his possession was "Barsatis" which formed part of the main residential unit that stood permanently transferred to a claimant displaced person and Permanent Transfer Deed had also been issued in her favour.
18. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and our conclusion is that the appellants in both the appeals have no locus standi to challenge the orders made by the Settlement Authorities as well as the one passed by the High Court in their writ petitions. Further, after examining the record, we are satisfied that the Settlement Authorities, after repeated spot inspections, had arrived at the conclusion that the residential portions of the different floors of the building constituted one indivisible unit which as one residential house stood permanently transferred to the predecessor- in-interest of respondents Nos. 1 to 7, and this finding of the Settlement Authorities cannot be interfered with.
19. ' In the light of these conclusions we do not find any substance in the two appeals which are hereby dismissed with costs.