1. ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J---Dispute relates to one portion out of the four of Property NO.BXXIII-.3S-9, Gujranwala. It was allotted to Muhammad Hussain, respondent No.1, by the Rehabilitation authorities on 19-1-1957. Shorn of unnecessary details, Abdul Rahim filed a belated LH form and sought condonation of 'delay on which a report was called for from the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. Mr. Muhammad Arif Rana, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, submitted his report that `though the name of Abdul Rahim does not exist in the survey register yet he was found in possession of property at the time of survey. However, he submitted an affidavit to this office to the effect that he is in occupation of this part of the property long before 1958. The contention of the applicant contained in the affidavit is duly attested by the Chairman of Union Council Khan Ghulam Dastgir Khan who is also Vice Chairman of the Municipal Committee, Gujranwala. In view of this authentic attestation his possession seems to be before 1958." Delay was condoned. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner took up the matter of transfer. He rejected the form of the petitioner as well as of the respondent vide order dated 7-10-1970. Their appeals were rejected by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 19-1-1971. This order was not challenged any further. Later on the petitioner as well as the respondent filed BS forms. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner-vide order dated 30-3-1971 held the respondent entitled to transfer on the ground of being allottee in possession. Petitioner's form was rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal and the matter of transfer in favour of the respondent was also taken up in suo motu revision by the Settlement Commissioner who dismissed both vide order dated 13-5-1974 on the ground that the petitioner Abdul Rahim was not proved to be in possession of the plot in dispute from any record whatsoever and that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had rightly transferred the plot in favour of Muhammad Hussain who is proved to be m possession by the documentary evidence produced by him and the record maintained by the Department. This order was challenged by the petitioner through Writ Petition No.1412-R/1974 which has been dismissed and the learned Single Judge of the: Lahore High Court, Lahore in his order dated 13-11-1983 observed that "the finding recorded by the learned Settlement Commissioner on the question of possession has not been otherwise challenged before me as besides the affidavit referred to in the report nothing was referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner to establish the possession of the petitioner over the plot in dispute". It was further observed that "the petitioner having not established his possession over the disputed plot was obliviously not entitled to claim the transfer of the plot, on the BS form". It was also observed that requisite construction was not established nor such a plea has been taken. It is this order of the learned Single Judge which is sought to be appealed by leave of this Court.
2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when report was called for condonation of delay in filing belated LH Form the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had made a report, aforequoted from which it follows that the petitioner's possession was accepted; and, therefore, the finding of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 30-3-1971 and of the Settlement Commissioner dated 13-5-1974 as well as that of the learned Single Judge in his order dated 13-11-1983 that it has not been proved that the petitioner was in possession, was erroneous.
3. The report was not only behind the back of the respondent but it itself was not definitive. When the matter was taken up in the presence of the parties in judicial proceedings by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 30-3-1971 and by the Settlement Commissioner on 13-5-1974, it was found that the petitioner was not in possession. Rather the respondent-allottee was in possession.
4. These judicial findings have been upheld by the learned Single Judge in the order sought to be appealed. It is obvious that no interference is called for in the concurrent finding of fact.
5. Moreover, in the earlier round when the petitioner's LH Form was rejected, on his appeal the Additional Settlement Commissioner in his order dated 19-1-1971 recorded the finding that "I have visited the spot also in presence of the parties. I found no construction whatsoever on the spot as stated by the appellant. His possession over the plot, before the target date has also not been proved by him in any manner:" These findings were never challenged by the petitioner and became final.
6. In view of what has been stated above, the petitioner having been found not tobe in possession not having raised any construction, the transfer of the portion in dispute in favour of allottee- respondent is unexceptionable.
7. There is no merit in this petition. It is, therefore, dismissed.