1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-The dispute in this case relates to evacuee premises No. 3-S-18 situated in Block No. 15 of Sargodha City. It is a double-storied building consisting of six rooms on the ground floor and three rooms on the first floor. The rooms on the ground floor were occupied by the petitioner and his two brothers as also a cousin of theirs and the respon--dents Nos. I and 2.
2. The rooms on the first floor were in the occupation of one Mohammad Siddique son of Ghulam Rasul and one Mohammad Aslam. When settlement operations started the petitioner, instead of filing his C. H. Form at Sargodha, filed the same on the 30th of November, 1959, in the office of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore. Out of the occupants of the house, only Atta Mohammad son of Ghulam Bheek did not file any claim form.
3. On the 30th of December, 1959, the petitioner was transferred the portion in his and in his two brothers' occupation as well as the room in the occupa--petition of Atta Muhammad son of Ghulam Bheek as also two rooms on the first floor in occupation of Muhammad Aslam. The respondents 1 and 2 and Mohammad Siddique son of Ghulam Rasul were transferred the rooms in their respective possession.
4. Against this order, Mohammad Siddique son of Ghulam Rasul, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Mohammad Aslam filed separate appeals. The petitioner on coming to know that they had filed appeals also filed an appeal on the 7th of February, 1970, claiming the entire house on the ground that the same was indivisible.
5. The Additional Settlement Commissioner eliminated the petitioner altogether on the ground that he had not filed any C. H. Form and no such form had been transferred to the office of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha. The receipt produced by the petitioner to evidence the filing of his form at Lahore was rejected on the basis of some instructions of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, although it was placed on the record and marked, as Exh. P. A. The house was divided into two portions; one portion was transferred to Mohd. Siddique son of Ghulam Rasul and the other to respondent No.1.
6. Against this order, the petitioner, Mohammad Aslam and Nizam Din (respondent No. 2) filed three separate revision petitions. The revision peti--petition of Mohammad Aslam was dismissed on the ground that he was non-- claimant but those of respondent No. 2 and the petitioner were accepted. The house was divided horizontally. The ground floor was transferred to the petitioner and the first floor to respondent No. 2. All other claimants were eliminated on the ground that their occupations were subsequent to the occupation of the petitioner and the said respondent No. 2.
7. The Settlement Commissioner, it appears, had also traced out the C. H. Form of the petitioner and accepted the same. It was found to have been received in the office of the Deputy settlement Commissioner, Sargodha, on the 11th of January, 1960.
8. Three second revision petitions filed by the unsuccessful parties against this order were dismissed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Thereupon the respondent No. I came to the former High Court of West Pakistan in its writ jurisdiction. So also did Mohammad Siddique son of Ghulam Rasul.
9. The petitioner and his two brothers were made parties in both these petitions.
10. Mohammad Aslam also filed a third petition against the petitioner and his brothers. All the three petitions were admitted and ordered to be heard together on 2I-2-63; but, on this date, unfortunately, the third writ petition was not entered in the cause list, and the petitioner's counsel, who actually filed his Vakalatnamas on this date in the other two writ petitions, asked for an adjournment on the ground that he had no time to file a written statement being under the impression that the petitions will not be heard as the third petition was not on the cause list. The request for the adjournment was, however, refused and the Court heard the two writ petitions, namely, Nos. 1761-R/62 and 1059-R/63, when a new objection was taken for the first time in the High Court to the effect that the petitioner was not entitled to the transfer of the house, because, he had since submitted an application for participation in the earmarking scheme. A certificate to that effect was also filed.
11. The petitioner's counsel denied that the petitioner had participated in any such scheme and requested the Court to remand the case back to the Settle--ment Authorities for enquiry into this matter and the genuineness of the certificate filed. The learned Single Judge, however, held that the petitioner had disentitled himself to the transfer of the premises by participating in the earmarking such, me and reversed the decision of the Settlement Authorities. The whole of the ground floor was transferred by the High Court to the respondent No. 1 and the first floor to respondent No. 2.
12. The petitioner went up in Letters Patent appeal but the same was also dismissed by a Division Bench after calling for the original records of the Settlement Department and examining the "E" register of the relevant centre.
13. The third Writ Petition No. 1059-R/63, however, it appears, has since been withdrawn.
14. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court, and it is strenuously contended on his behalf that the High Court should not, have in the Writ jurisdiction reversed the findings of the Settlement Authorities merely on the basis of a certificate granted by some official of the Department and an entry in the "E" Register which itself was of a doubtful character. There was overwriting in the address as also in the name of the father of the apple--cant. In the circumstances, it could not be said with certainty that it was the petitioner who had applied for participation in the earmarking scheme.
15. If the High Court had any doubt with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner, it should have, in any event, remanded the case back to the Settlement Authorities to hold a proper enquiry instead of undertaking this take itself in the writ jurisdiction.
16. It is true that so far as the address is concerned, the overwriting has affected a change but this may well be due to an honest mistake. Apart from the assertion of the petitioner, we have nothing else before us, on the basis of which we can definitely come to the conclusion that the entry is incorrect. Even now, the petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that any other person of the same name lived at the original address given in the register and that he had applied for participation in the earmarking scheme. In the absence of any such proof, we are not in a position to say that the High Court was wrong in placing reliance upon the entry in the "E" Register.
17. We are not also prepared to accept the contention of the learned counsel that the High Court can in no case take additional evidence and enter into facts at the writ stage. There can be no objection in doing so when the evidence is of a simple nature and not by any means complicated.
18. In the X present case, all that was done was that a certificate issued by the Settlement Authorities was accepted as genuine. Relying thereon, the petitioner washed to have participated in the earmarking scheme. The Letters Patent', Bench took abundant caution in calling for the Register in order to satisfy itself that such an application was in fact made. This was borne out by the entry in the register. We are unable to agree that this could not be done by the High Court in the writ jurisdiction.
19. No illegality has, in our opinion, been committed by the High Court in passing the order concerned, even though it is with respect to a question of fact.
20. The case could not be remanded merely to satisfy the petitioner. The petitioner ought to have made some effort to show that Mohammad Siddiq who had applied for participation in the earmarking scheme was someone else.