1. ' SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-The petitioner is a claimant mid he has be aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Commissioner, dated the 25th October, 1965, dividing the evacuee house in dispute into three portions a transferring each portion to each of the three claimants already in h occupation. In dividing toe house the principle followed by the Settle me Commissioner evidently was to benefit the largest number of claimants a to avoid throwing out of the house any claimant. All the three claim= appeared to have been in possession of their respective portions for a co severable number of years. The petitioner was in possession of a portion the ground floor, claimant Abdul Shakoor respondent was in possession a room and a part of the verandah on the same floor, while another claim Nizm Din respondent was in possession of the entire first floor and a room and some of the portion of the ground floor.
2. ' The petitioner's writ petition challenging the validity of the order of t Settlement Commissioner, dated the 25th of October, 1965, was right dismissed on the grounds that the house having already been divided by t Settlement Commissioner (he was acting as a Chief Settlement Commissioned into three portions each one of them became a separate house and petitioner was therefore not entitled to more than one house and to propriety of the division could not be challenged in the writ jurisdiction The High Court also found that the division was a just and proper one the circumstances of the case. We agree with this view of the High Court and reject similar contentions repeated before us.
3. ' It has been contended further that respondent Abdul Shakoor had Mach a belated application for transfer and, therefore, he should not have beer sferred any portion of the house. The contention has no force. Under a graph of Settlement Scheme No, 1 it was the duty of the Deputy lament Commissioner to consider the claims of all other persons "who have applied" for transfer. This required consideration of the claim of said respondent, who might have applied and did not apply till then. Thermoses in the case of Altaf Hussain etc. v. Chief Settlement Comstoner (1), this Court has held that the Chief Settlement Commissioner no jurisdiction to refuse to accept the form for transfer of the property ought the time fixed for filing it had expired.
4. ' It was next sought to be contended that Abdul Shakoor had already n allotted a house and he could not be given another house. This point never raised before the High Court and could not, therefore, be permitted raised for the first time in this Court.
5. ' We find no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court, and petition is accordingly dismissed.
(1) PLD 1965 SC 68.