1. ' ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--The dispute in this case is whether upper portion of property No,124- 21/278, Sialkot is a part and parcel of the industrial concern known as Goraya Printing Press which was purchased by the petitioner and his associates as the highest bidders, at the public auction on 19-10-1957, after it was declared as an uneconomic industrial concern by the Industrial Rehabilitation Board on 14-3-1956. After confirmation of the auction, the Secretary, West Pakistan Industrial Rehabilitation Board directed the Rehabilitation Officer to hand over possession of the concern to the highest bidders. Since upper portion of the property was in occupation of respondent 3, it was directed that he should be given an alternative accommodation. In pursuance to this, the respondent applied for allotment of an alternative accommodation by two applications dated 2-7-1958 and 9-7-1960. However, after settlement operation started, respondent applied for transfer of the said portion of the property on a C.H. Form. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner rejected the request on the short ground that the entire premises, including the upper portion, has already been auctioned in favour of the petitioner and his associates. Respondents' appeal against this order was dismissed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 7-5-1960. He then challenged these orders in Writ Petition No, 719-R of 1961 in Lahore High Court which was also dismissed in limine. However, a Letters Patent Appeal filed by him succeeded on 2-4-1968 with the result that the case was remanded to the Settlement Commissioner for fresh decision on two questions namely, "whether there was any sanction of the Central Government for the auction of the property as an uneconomical industrial concern, and if so whether the disputed portion was included in it."
2. ' On remand of the case, Settlement Commissioner Lahore after holding a detailed inquiry held that the property was auctioned after the requisite sanction of the Central Government was obtained, and that the disputed premises were also a part and parcel of the industrial concern. Respondent filed Writ Petition No,403-R of 1979 in the same High Court against this order which, however, succeeded by the judgment dated 19-1-1980 with the result that the case was remanded to the Chief Settlement Commissioner to decide, after going through the record and other evidence that may be produced, as to the extent of the property sold by auction in favour of the petitioner or his associates.
3. ' On remand of the case, learned Settlement Commissioner (Industries) Punjab, Lahore after examining the record of the case held, by the order dated 30-11-1980, that the entire property including the upper portion thereof was disposed of as Goraya Printing Press at the public auction in favour of the petitioner and his associates.
4. ' This order was again challenged by the petitioner in the same High Court, in Writ Petition No,227-R of 1981, which however succeeded as in the view of the learned Judge in the High Court who heard the Writ Petition only that part of the property was auctioned which consisted of two rooms and the machinery which was sealed, and not the upper portion which remained in possession of the petitioner and was never sealed, and did not therefore form part of the property that had to be auctioned. It is in these circumstances that petitioner filed this petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court.
5. Chaudhry Khalil-ur-Rehman, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition submits that learned Single Judge in the High Court has seriously erred in interfering in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, with a finding of fact reached throughout in the various proceedings of the case that the disputed portion of the property is a part and parcel of the property put to public auction, which was transferred to petitioner as the highest bidders at the auction.
6. Learned counsel further submits that learned Judge in High Court has also failed to appreciate that petitioner himself had applied for an alternate accommodation on two occasions in view of the fact that the portion of the property in his occupation was transferred to the highest bidders as a part of the industrial concern and it was therefore, not open to the respondent to set up the contradictory plea.
7. These and the other submissions raised in support of the petition deserve consideration. Leave is granted. Security Rs, 5,000.
8. ' Status quo in respect of the property shall be maintained till the appeal is decided.