1. M. R. KHAN, J.-This appeal, by special leave, is from the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, dismissing the appellant's Letters Patent Appeal No. 329 of 1966.
2. The dispute giving rise to the Letters Patent Appeal related to the garages, servant quarters and the open compound comprised in the residential Bungalow No. 142/143, Garden West Karachi.The said bungalow has two storeys. It has five rooms on each floor. There are two servant quarters and one garage attached to the ground floor. Also there are three servant quarters on the first floor. The appellant, who has been in occupation of the first floor, constructed another garage at his own costs. Mr. Nasiruddin, the fifth respondent herein has been in occupation of the ground floor. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, by his order, dated the 14th January 1960, transferred the ground floor to Mr. Nasiruddin and the first floor to the appellant. As regards the garages, servant quarters and the open compound, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner passed the following order:--- "There are two garages and 5 servant quarters in the bungalow. One garage and two servant quarters will be owned by Khan Saheb Noor Muhammad Khan and one garage and three servant quarters by Mr. Nasiraddin. The uncovered area will be shared equally by the two transferees. The other amenities and easements attached to the bungalow will be commonly enjoyed by both the transferees."
3. The division of the two floors of the bungalow as made by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was ultimately maintained by the Settlement Commissioner by his order, dated the 21st May 1960.
4. In the same order the Settlement Commis--sioner gave the following direction :--- "As to the division of the compound, the parties may amicably decide it between themselves and file agreed formula before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner concerned within one month of this order, failing which that officer will do it himself after hearing both the parties."
5. Mr. S. A. Nusrat, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in directing the settlement authorities to maintain the transfer of one garage and two servant quarters on the ground floor in favour of Mr. Nasiruddin as this division was quite different from the division made by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by his order, dated the 30th January 1963.
6. This contention is of substance inasmuch as the learned Single Judge disturbed the division made by the settlement authorities and, in doing so, acted in excess of the jurisdiction conferred by Article 98 of the 1962-Constitution. The order of the learned Single Judge as armed by the Letters Patent Bench cannot, therefore, be sustained in law. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court.
7. Before the hearing of this appeal was concluded, both the parties prayed for an adjournment for enabling them to effect a compromise. The appeal was, accordingly, adjourned. The parties have now filed a joint petition of compromise in which they have prayed for maintaining the order of the Settlement Commissioner, dated the 21st May 1960 and also the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, dated the 30th January 1963. In the compromise petition, it is stated that the parties have entered into an agreement of sale in pursuance of which the appellant shall sell all his rights, title and interest in the disputed bungalow to Mr. Nasiruddin. The parties have prayed for disposal of the appeal in accordance with the compromise made by them. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of in terms of the joint petition of compromise.