KHALIL-UL-REHMAN, J.--The facts necessary for the purpose of the review petition are that an evacuee house bearing No.B-II-2-S-1118 Jalalpur Road, Hafizabad, District Gujranwala, on the basis of an agreement was transferred to the claimants who had earlier submitted Forms for its transfer.
Agreement contained a recital that the claimants-transferees had agreed with the non-claimants to allow them to reside in the portions of transferred house after receiving price of their respective rooms. Deputy Settlements Commissioner vide his order dated l4-3-1961 ordered transfer of the house in favour of the claimants- applicants. This order was assailed in appeal by non-claimants- respondents No.5 to 11. On 9-5-1961, Additional Settlement Commissioner dismissed their appeal as barred by time. First revision preferred by them met the same fate as it was dismissed by the learned Settlements Commissioner on 5-8-1961. Thereupon, non- claimants-respondents No.5 to 11 filed a second revision petition, which was accepted by Mr. Sultan Muhammad Khan, Settlement Commissioner with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 28-ll-1961. He directed that "the house should be transferred to both the parties on the basis of their possession."
Respondents No.1 to 4, who were claimants and initial transferees of the whole house filed a constitutional petition (W.P.No. 1592-R of 1962) for challenging the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner passed on 28-11- 1961. This petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 3-12-1965 by observing that the impugned order was eminently a just and proper order and despite some technical infirmities was not susceptible to interference in equitable jurisdiction. It was also observed that no justification was made out for interference in extraordinary jurisdiction as the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner had the effect of settling the largest possible number of displaced persons who have all along been residing in the house.-Dismissal of the writ petition was further challenged by respondents No.1 to 4 in appeal- L.
P.A.No.134 f 1965. During the pendency of the appeal, parties to the appeal reached a settlement and prayed for decision of the appeal in terms of compromise arrived at between them.
Compromise petition (C.M.No.1375 of 1969) had not come up for hearing, when the present petitioners filed a petition- C.M.No. 1314 of 1969 for being impleaded as respondents to the pending appeal. This petition came up for hearing before the Bench and the order passed by it on 7-4-1969 reads as:- "Let this application be heard alongwith the main L.P.A.No. 134-65. The Bench hearing the appeal will consider the advisability of impleading the present applicants or not. Learned counsel submits that the parties in L.P.A, have already moved an application for settling the dispute between them by a compromise. The present applicants can appear in Court on the date when that application is put up for disposal."
2. C.M.No. 1375 of 1969 was placed before the Division Bench on 22-4- 1969, whereupon a notice was directed to be issued to the respondents in the appeal. The petition for recording of compromise and disposal of the appeal in accordance therewith came up for hearing after notice before the Division Bench on 18-9-1969 when after recording the statements of the parties to the appeal, it was disposed of in terms of a concluded compromise contained in C.M.No. 1375 of 1969. Aggrieved of te disposal of the appeal through a compromise between the parties, petitioners had submitted this review petition-R A.No.50 of 1969 on 23-9- 1969.
3. In support of the review petition, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in absence of notice to, and hearing of the petitioners, compromise could not have been accepted because they had already moved an application for their impleadment as an interested party to the appeal. It was further contended that even the order passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petition contemplated transfer of the portions in their possession and since the parties to the writ petition as well as the L.PA. Were not in possession of the entire property and specially those rooms, which were in possession of the petitioners, they ar not entitled to the transfer of those portions and that in any event, in the initial agreement on the basis of which transfer of the house was obtained by the claimants, the petitioners were entitled to reside in those rooms on payment of the price.
4. Upon hearing learned counsel at length, we are clearly of the view that there is no merit in this review petition. On 7-4-1969, the Division Bench of the Court had made it clear that the applicants can appear in Court on the date when the application is put up for disposal. In this view of the order, it was for the petitioners to wail and watch the fixation of the appeal and to appear and make representation on the date when the main appeal came up for hearing alongwith the compromise petition. The plea that the L.PA. And the C.M. For compromise did nt appear in the couse list of 18th September 1969 remained unsubstantiated because the cause list of that date has not been produced. Reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioners on the averments made in application-C.M.NO. 1375 of 1969 to the effect that no date for hearing of the L.P.A, had been fixed is misplaced xx as C.M.No. 1375 of 1969 was filed in Court on 26th March, 1969. It came up for hearing before the Division Bench on 22-4-1969 when a notice was directed to be issued to the respondents. Thereafter, after notice the petition was placed before the Bench on 18th September 1969 and the appeal was disposed of in terms of the compromise. In any event, petitioners has no real grievance to make. The transfer of the house to the claimants was made on the basis of an agreement wherein it was agreed that the house in question be transferred to the claimants alone.
After having agreed to the transfer of the house in favour of the claimants, there was nothing left for the petitioners to agitate on the settlement side. They were neither parties to the appeal nor the revision petitions filed before the settlement Forums, nor in the writ petition filed in this Court. By merely applying for being impleaded as respondents in the L.PA., petitioners could not claim any effective relief in regard to partial transfer of the house in question in their favour.
5. For all these reasons, we do not find any justification for setting aside of the order passed on compromise, which had the effect of settling the displaced persons in the house as far back as 1969. The review application is, therefore, dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.