1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--This appeal through leave of the Court is directed against judgment dated 19-8-1974 of the Lahore High Court; whereby, in an urban settlement matter involving division of property, a constitutional petition filed by the respondents' side, was allowed.
2. ' A preliminary objection regarding the completion of record of this case viz-a-viz the impleadment of Legal Representatives of the deceased parties, having been examined at length, we directed that the learned counsel appearing for the original parties and now for their legal representatives, would be deemed to be appearing on their behalf, after duly constituted as parties. This is particularly so when some of the applications for one or the other purpose, in this behalf, have already been placed on record with the names and particulars of the concerned L.Rs, ' Leave to appeal was granted by the following order:- "The petitioners seek special leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 19th of August, 1974 by which the portion in possession of the first respondent was transferred to him as a residential unit.
3. "The dispute relates to the house bearing No,125-C, situate in Model Town, Lahore, It was allotted as a whole to respondent No,l. Later, a portion of the house consisting of two rooms, a store room and a bathroom was allotted to M.S. Mirza, the son of the second respondent. On the commencement of the settlement operations, the second respondent, being a claimant displaced person, applied for the transfer of a portion of this house on C.H. Form on the basis of the possession of her son and associated with Rafiqa Begum to the extent of 2/3rd share in her claim. The first respondent also applied for the transfer of the portion of the house in his possession on NCH Form. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, by order dated 4th of December, 1959, held the house to be indivisible and transferred it to the second respondent. By another order dated 14th of December, 1959, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner accepted the association and determined the shares of the associated claimant and the second respondent to be 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively.
4. "The appeal to the Settlement Commissioner also failed as it was dismissed on 30th of December, 1959. The revision also met the same fate as it was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner by order dated 4th of July, 1960. In the second revision before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the first and the second respondents compromised whereunder each one of them agreed to retain the portion in his or her possession. Rafiqa Begum, the associated claimant, was not impleaded in these proceedings. This revision was, accordingly, disposed of in terms of the compromise by order dated 2nd of January, 1963.
5. "Rafiqa Begum, thereupon,challenged this order in writ petition No,2313-R of 1963 on the ground that she was not bound by the compromise as she was not impleaded in the proceedings. This plea was accepted by the High Court and the case was remanded by order dated 19th of October, 1966, to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for deciding it afresh after notice to the parties. On remand, the Chief Settlement Commissioner, by order dated 9th of November, 1967, held that the house was indivisible and transferred it to the second respondent and Rafiqa Begum in the ratio of their shares. Thereupon, the first respondent filed the writ petition No,975-R of 1967 and succeeded to the extent that the house was held to be divisible and the portion in his possession was transferred to him.
6. "The learned counsel for the petitioners, who are the legal representatives of Rafiqa Begum, have challenged the legality of this order on the ground that the High Court had no jurisdiction to hold the property as divisible in violation of the first proviso to section 2(4) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and. Rehabilitation) Act, and further to transfer half the portion to the first respondent in violation of para 1 of the Schedule to the Act. It was further submitted that the second respondent had a preferential claim as being a claimant displaced person and even though she had claimed for the transfer of the half portion of the house yet she was entitled to the transfer of the whole house as it was indivisible. These submissions require consideration.
7. "Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted to the petitioners."
8. ' Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the argument advanced at the time of grant of leave to appeal; namely, that the High Court had no jurisdiction to declare that the property was divisible as according to him it was violative of the first proviso to section 2(4) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. That being so, the consequential transfer to the respondents' side was iligal.
9. ' It is a fact that the property in dispute is a large urban property which is about six Kanals in area and one of each equal area has gone to the parties concerned as a result of order of the High Court. It is not denied that ordinarily the High Court has no jurisdiction to hold the property as divisible when a proper order or conscious application of mind by the Settlement Authorities shows otherwise. But, in very exceptional cases, where the orders impugned before the High Court are demostratably, arbitrary and capricious, the interference by the High Court has not been upset by this Court in its appellate jurisdiction through grant of leave to appeal. In this case also there are positive and strong findings by the High Court on the said aspects of the case against the appellants. This Court has also often held that depending upon the circumstances of each case, it will refrain to interfere when substantial justice has been done in settlement cases notwithstanding the fact that the impugned judgment/order does not satisfy some jurisdictional or other legal requirements.
10. ' After hearing the learned counsel from both sides, at some length, we are satisfied that substantial justice has been done by the High Court and that too after a careful exhaustive analysis of the orders impugned before it. It does fall into those cases in which this Court would decline to interfere. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.