1. ' USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--This appeal, by leave of the Court, is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 16-3-1976 in a Letter Patent Appeal No,369 of 1966, whereby a Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of a Single Judge of the said learned Court, passed in Writ Petition No,1277/R of 1963.
2. ' The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal arc that Muhammad Yasin respondent No,1 was in possession of the property P.213, Ward No,VII at Faisalabad City, which is a composite property, consisting of commercial and residential portions. On 27-12-1959 the Deputy Settlement Commissioner-I transferred the residential portion alongwith the disputed premises being a shop in possession of respondent No,1, to Ata Muhammad predecessor-in-interest of the appellant No,1 and two shops to Ahmed Khan and Muhammad Din. Both the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant and the respondent No,1 Muhammad Yaseen, not being satisfied with the said order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner-I, filed separate appeals before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, who vide his order, dated 16-7-1960 transferred the disputed shop to M. Yasin respondent No,1 and residential portion to Ata Muhammad predecessor-in-interest of the appellant. No,1. Ata Muhammad filed a revision petition against this order, before the Settlement Commissioner, who vide his order, dated 12-7-1961 accepted the revision petition, directed thereby, that the shop in question be transferred to Ata Muhammad.
3. ' Muhammad Yasin respondent No,1 filed Writ Petition No,1277/R of 1963 before the Lahore High Court, Lahore, challenging the order of the Settlement Commissioner. A learned Single Judge of the High Court who heard the writ petition, vide his judgment, dated 23-2-1966 dismissed the same on the ground "that it was a simple case of exercise of discretion under section 2(12) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 and if the Settlement Commissioner has come to the conclusion that the room occupied by Muhammad Yasin is a part of the house occupied by Ata Muhammad and he transferred it to the latter, the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Settlement Commissioner under Article 98 of the Constitution".
4. ' Muhammad Yasin respondent No,1 being aggrieved filed a Letters Patent Appeal No,369 of 1966, before the Lahore High Court, Lahore. A learned Division Bench of the High Court, after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties accepted the L.P.A. Of the respondent No,1 with the following conclusion:-- "The case of the respondent, however, is that he was the person who was actually in possession of the property and the appellant is on the other hand a licensee. This later point does not appear to have been urged before the Settlement Authorities. We, however, agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Settlement Commissioner should have gone into at least these questions before passing the order impugned in the writ petition. If we had not been inclined to interfere with his order on the ground in para. 3, we would still be disposed to quash the order of the Commissioner and remand the case to him for deciding the occupation of priority of possession. But it is unnecessary to make an order of remand since we have come to the conclusion that the Settlement Commissioner had not by application of his own independent mind treated the portion occupied by Muhammad Yasin as a portion of the house.
5. ' We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order passed in the writ petition and quash the order of the Settlement Commissioner."
6. Leave was granted to the appellants on the ground whether the property in I dispute being composite in character was liable to he transferred as a house.
7. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments of the Courts below. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that in this case there are different findings of facts by the Courts below i.e, the first one by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner who transferred the residential portion including the disputed area of Property No,213, Ward No,VIII to Ata Muhammad predecessor-in-interest of the appellants and two shops to Ahmad Khan and Muhammad Din. The Additional Settlement Commissioner in appeals by both the parties transferred the disputed area being a shop to the respondent No,1 which was in his occupation. The Settlement Commissioner in revision filed by Ata Muhammad accepted the revision and treated the area in dispute transferred to respondent No,1, as an integral part of the residential portion and reversed it to Ata Muhammad.
8. A perusal of the record will show that respondent No,1 was in occupation of the disputed premises and on the basis of which the Additional Settlement Commissioner in appeal after a thorough examination of the record, transferred the shop in dispute to him. Whereas the Settlement Commissioner in revision did not appreciate the case and merely exercised his discretion under section 2(12) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 and has wrongly accepted the revision. The learned Single Judge of the High Court in writ petition also did not examine the record whether the respondent No,1 was in possession of the disputed shop. But simply dismissed the writ petition on the ground of jurisdiction. The other points argued by the learned counsel for the appellants relate to questions of facts and have thoroughly been sifted by the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court, which in our opinion, is based on proper appreciation of the record.
9. ' Under the circumstances and for the foregoing reasons was find that this appeal has no merit for consideration of this Court which is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.