1. S. A. RAHMAN, J.-The claim of the petitioners to transfer of an area of land with some structures thereon, of which they were in possession, was turned down by the Settlement authorities on the twin grounds that the structures in question were not of a permanent character and that the area covered by the structures was not of the requisite proportion to the area claimed, as required by the Scheme framed under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The petitioners unsuccessfully challenged the orders of the Settlement authorities in the High Court. A learned Single Judge declined to issue a direction under Article 98 of the, Constitution and a Letters Patent Bench agreed with that decision. This is a petition seeking special leave to appeal from the order of the High Court.
2. Mr. Waheed Farooqui on behalf of the petitioners, drew our attention to paragraph 1?(1) of the Schedule to the Act, at page 258 of the Manual of Settlement, which lays down, inter alia, that an evacuee building site which has been allotted to a claimant, on which a permanent building has been constructed by him, shall be transferred to him on payment of the market value prevalent at the time of allotment and may, if the claimant so desires, be adjusted against his claim. The petitioners, on the finding of the Settlement authorities, are not within this provision, since it has been held that the structures that they put up on the land in question were not of a permanent character. Learned counsel suggests that there bad been no proper inquiry into the character of the structures in question. This was, however, a question of fact within the jurisdiction of the Settlement authorities to determine and they apparently satisfied themselves on the point by inspection and reports. There is no ground for thinking that the order on this point passed by the Settlement authorities was in any way open to legal exception.
3. On the second ground too, the Settlement authorities had acted within the provisions of the Scheme framed under the Act, which prescribed, inter alia, the condition that one-fourth of the area claimed should be covered by the building. It is admitted that this condition was not satisfied in the present case. It is not shown that such a provision in the Scheme was ultra vires the Act.
4. On both points therefore, the decision of the High Court appears to be correct and no case has been made out 1for grant of special leave to appeal.
5. The petition is dismissed.