' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, calls in question order dated 28-6-1976 passed by the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, whereby house No,253 Block No,10, Jhang Saddar, was transferred to Muhammad Hanif respondent No,2
2. The dispute in this case relates to house No,253, Block No,10, Jhang Saddar, which was in possession of Muhammad Hanif respondent No,2 and one Taj Muhammad, who is not a party to these proceedings since 1952. Taj Muhammad was a non-claimant displaced person. He, however, instead of filing NCH Form filed CH form on 15-7-1959 for transfer of the disputed house.
Respondent No,2 also filed NCH Form on 26-4-1960. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Jhang, by order dated 14-6-1960, transferred the entire disputed house to said Taj Muhammad on the ground that Muhammad Hanif respondent No,2 herein, filed a defective form. The said Taj Muhammad associated with Muhammad Ali petitioner herein, and as a result of agreement executed between the parties the house was transferred to the petitioner. Respondent No,2 filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Settlement Commissioner on 1-9-1961. The revision petition against the said order was also dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner by order dated 30-11-1963. Respondent No,2 challenged the said orders before this Court by means of writ petition No,614 of 1964 which was accepted on 20-11-1968 and the case was remanded to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner concerned for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. It was inter alia observed in the said order of the High Court that respondent No,2 did file a form as a non- claimant displaced person and, therefore, he could not have been disentitled for consideration of his case on merits merely on the ground that he filed a wrong Form. On remand, the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Jhang, vide order dated 11-9-1969, after spot inspection, transferred the entire house to Taj Muhammad on the ground that he was in occupation of major portion of the house which was indivisible. On appeal, the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was set aside and the house was transferred in the name of respondent No,2 on the ground that he was in occupation of the major portion of the house in dispute on the target date i,e. 20-12-1958. The petitioner, herein, filed a revision petition, which was rejected by order dated 28- 6-1976 passed by the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore. The operative part of the said order reads thus: "Taj Muhammad was not in occupation of the major portion as explained by the petitioner's counsel and he could not have surrendered his rights prior to the determination of the entitlement.
Muhammad Ali though a claimant is not rightful transferee of the property and Muhammad Hanif and his father were definitely in possession of more than what was in possession of Taj Muhammad. I, therefore, have no hesitation to reject the revision filed by Muhammad Ali and hold that the house will remain transferred in favour of the respondent Muhammad Hanif."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest and Muhammad Hand respondent No,2, herein have been in possession of the house, in question, and therefore, the Settlement Authorities ought to have adverted to the question as to whether both the applicants could not be accommodated by division of the house in which they had been peacefully living since 1952. The contention has no force. The Scheme of the Settlement laws is that every residential premises is to be treated as one house unless divided by the Settlement Authorities. In the instant case, the Settlement Authorities have recorded a finding of fact that the house in dispute is an indivisible unit. This being so, the question of divisibility cannot be re-opened in writ jurisdiction.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner has been in occupation of the house in dispute since 1st February, 1948, as per survey record, although it has been erroneously stated in the NCH Form that the date of possession was 4-7-1952 and therefore, the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest being prior in occupation of the disputed house, the same should have been transferred to him.
5. The argument is untenable. On the question of date of occupation the petitioner cannot be permitted at this stage to take a stand contrary to the entries made by his predecessor-in-interest in the Form submitted by him. Furthermore, the parties have been litigating since 1960 and at no stage this point was raised before the Settlement Authorities. This disputed question of fact has not even been raised in the writ petition. It is an admitted fact that the predecessor-ininterest of the petitioner, as well as respondent No,2 gave their date of occupation as 4-7-1952 in their respective Forms. The Settlement Authorities following the previous departmental practice decided to transfer the disputed property to respondent No,2 on the basis of major occupation to which no exception can be taken in writ jurisdiction.
' In view of the above, the writ petition fails, but there shall be no order as to costs.