1. ' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J. ---In pursuance of the remand order passed on the writ petition filed by the petitioner's husband bearing No, 839R/1968, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner took up the matter of transfer. He declined transfer on his NCH form on the ground that the property in dispute already stood transferred as a house to the respondent. This is vide order dated 5-9-1970.
2. On revision, the Additional Settlement Commissioner, held vide his order dated 17-8-1973 that "I see no justification in interfering with the matter as the petitioner has voluntarily withdrawn his application under Settlement Scheme No, VI. As for the rejection of NCH form it was rightly rejected by the learned DSC and ample reasons are given for the same. However, one aspect of the case is still left undecided that the respondent will only be eligible to have three times of the plinth area in his possession. In case, excess land is available for disposal it will have to be disposed of according to amended law. The learned Deputy settlement Commissioner will take physical measurement of the whole property and will declare after hearing all the occupants in the property in question about the excess area available for disposal according to law. If after proportionate allowance of three times of plinth area to the transferees of the property no excess area is left out no other occupants will have any right for transfer of the property in their possession. With these observations the revision petition is ejected." This order was challenged by the petitioner through Writ Petition o.110-R of 1974 which has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court vide order dated 7-12-1985.
3. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that CH form of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected and notwithstanding the withdrawal of form under Settlement Scheme No, VI, the land over which the petitioner had raised construction should have been transferred to the applicant eating the NCH form as under Settlement Scheme No, VI.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record with his assistance. The respondent has been transferred an annexe with outhouses etc. As a 'house'. The learned Additional Settlement commissioner vide his revisional order dated 17-8-1973 challenged in these proceedings rightly held that the respondent was entitled to the annexe etc. Along with three times of the plinth area in his possession. To this extent of transfer in your of the respondent, the petitioner would have no claim thereto, whatever e nature of the form filed by her husband be because this was the entitlement of e respondent. If there is any excess area found, as directed by the Additional settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 17-8-1973, the petitioner will be titled to the area under her construction. The order of the learned Additional settlement Commissioner dated 17-8-1973 is perfectly legal and calls for no dereference.
5. ' In this view of the matter, the petition is dismissed.