1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal concerns the disposal of evacuee residential premises bearing Nos. 191, 197/1, 197-A and 197-A/1, situate on .The Mall, Rawalpindi Cantonment. The property comprises two blocks separated from each other by a metalled road, leading to Cantonment Board latrines, each block consisting of two portions.
2. The petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, Habib Ahmad Khan, along with some other persons, was in possession of the portion bearing No. 197, out of which two rooms and a bath room was with Ghulam Mohayuddin, the late husband of respondent No. 5, Mst. Shirin Gul. The respondents Nos. 6 & 7, Haji Muhammad Siddiq and Dr. Muhammad Siddiq, were in possession of the other block bearing Nos. 197-A and 197-A/l.
3. There has been prolonged litigation between the parties regarding the transfer of this property It is not necessary to narrate all the details here of the earlier phase of the litigation, and it is sufficient to say that by an order, made in appeal on 7-3-1960, the learned Settlement Commissioner treated the whole property as one unit on the basis of his site inspection, and transferred the same to Habib Ahmad Khan, Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 applied for a review of this order, whereas one A.I Akbar, transferee of the portion occupied by respondent No. 7, filed a revision petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner. By an order made on the 24th of Jun 1960, in review, the learned Settlement Commissioner divided the proper so as to transfer to respondents Nos. 5 and 6 the portions in their possession He held that 197 and 197-A were two separate units, there being a public street between the two bungalows. The revision petition of A.I Akbar a well as of the other occupants of the property was rejected by the Chic Settlement Commissioner on 13-9-1962. This position was reaffirmed 63 another order made on 26-10-1963.
4. The final orders made by the Settlement authorities were challenged in the High Court by means of separate writ petitions filed by Habib Ahmad Khan, Dr. Saeed Ahmad and A.I Akbar. They were accepted by a learned Judge on the 1st of December 1966, and the case was remanded to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for a fresh decision. As a result, the matter was reviewed at length by a learned Settlement Commissioner exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. By his order dated the 31st of July 1968, he upheld the transfer of the various portions of the property to their occupants, thus upholding the order made by the Settle--ment Commissioner in review on 24-6-1960. Habib Ahmad Khan was thus confined to the portion actually in his possession.
5. Dissatisfied with this result, the successors-in-interest of Habib Ahmad Khan invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, claiming that they were entitled to the remaining three portions of the property as well, but their petition has been dismissed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court on the 20th of February 1973.
6. Special leave to appeal is now sought by the petitioners mainly on the ground that the order passed by the learned Settlement Commissioner in review on 24-6-60 was without jurisdiction for the reason that the order passed by him on 7-3-1960, holding the entire property as one unit and transferring the same to Habib Ahmad Khan, was already under revision before the Chief Settlement Commissioner at the instance of A.I Akbar, and could not, therefore, be reviewed in view of the bar contained in sub--section (1)(C) of section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, which provides that an order against which an appeal or revision has been preferred would not be reviewed. Some other points regarding the eligibility of respondent No. 7, who is a local, to the transfer of any portion of the property have also been raised, but it is not necessary to advert to them.
7. The same objection was raised in the High Court, but was repelled on the ground that Habib Ahmad Khan had not objected to the Settlement Commissioner assuming jurisdiction in review proceedings ; on the contrary, he participated in the proceedings. It seems to us that the view taken by the High Court was fully justified in the circumstances of the case. Not only that Habib Ahmad Khan did not object to review proceedings on the ground of the pendency of A.I Akbar's revision petition, but the revision petition itself related only to a small portion of the property, whereas the review concerned all the portions. We consider, therefore, that this is not a case where it can be held that the order passed in review was without jurisdiction.
8. Another important feature of the case is that it is an admitted position that the two blocks of the property are divided from each other by a metalled road on which public vehicles and the general public are allowed to pass. In these circumstances, the order made by the Settlement Commis-- sioner on 7-3-1960 treating the entire property as one unit and transferring the same to Habib Ahmad Khan was open to serious objection, and was bound to be set aside in appeal or revision.
9. The Settlement Commissioner had no power to combine entirely independent and separate residential premises into 'one unit for the purpose of transferring them to a single applicant. The petitioners' predecessor being in possession of only one portion of the property, and the came having been transferred to him by the learned Settlement Commissioner in review, after holding the entire property to be divisible into four portions, the petitioners have no genuine grievance.
10. They could not be transferred more than one house.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.