1. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 15-2-1986, whereby writ petition of the petitioners against the order of the Deputy . Settlement Commissioner dated 25-10-1978, was dismissed.
2. Harz Abdul Ghaffar, respondent No.2 is the transferee of the residential portion of a property, situate in Anarkali, Lahore. There were two shops which formed part of the property, which were not transferred to respondent No.2 but were separately put to auction. One of the shops was purchased by Mst. Nazir Begum which is not disputed, and the other shop was purchased by Mst.
3. Khairun Nisa, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. There is a small store in the property to which the petitioners claimed it as a part of the shop purchased by their predecessor-in-interest.
4. The claim of the petitioners is disputed by the respondent No.2. On the application of the petitioners .The Settlement Inspector after inspection prepared the site plan in which the store in question is shown as part of the shop of the petitioners. The D.S.C. Attested the site plan. On revision filed by the respondent No.2 before the Settlement Commissioner the case was remanded to the D.S.C. For recording fresh decision, vide order 25-5-1974. The D.S.C. After hearing both the parties and making thorough inquiry held that the store in dispute is not a part of the shop transferred to Mst. Khairun Nisa predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, vide his order dated 25-10-1978. The petitioners challenged this order in a writ petition in the Lahore High Court which was dismissed, vide impugned order.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of this petition, we have come to the conclusion that this petition has no merit and needs dismissal straightaway. The main question involved in this petition whether the store in dispute is a part of the shop allotted to Mst. Khairun Nissa Begum, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, is a question of fact which stands concluded in favour of the respondent No.2 by the Courts below.
6. Under the circumstances, this petition is without any substance and is hereby dismissed.