' The dispute relates to Property No,821 (House), Bazaz Mohallah, Lahore Cantonment. By order dated 18th January (the year is not given) the same was transferred in favour of Habib Ahmed, Kabir Ahmad and others. Both the counsel agree that the word others means Yaqoob Ahmad petitioner also.
2. The aforementioned Kabir Ahmad filed an application dated 5th March, 1960, surrendering his own share in the house in favour of respondent Ghias-ud-Din. On this there is a report by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner dated 9th April, 1960, that the parties should be summoned. On 19th April, 1960, the Assistant Settlement Commissioner made a report as hereunder:--- "Now one of them has withdrawn in favour of others but in this case the portion of the third one is not clearly given. Summon the third party also."
' There is another report dated 18th May, 1960, which is as under:--- "By his order, dated 28-3-1960 the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner had previously transferred House No,821 Bazaz Mohallah, Lahore Cantonment to Mr. Kabir Ahmed but he has intimated to this office through his attorney that he does not require this house and withdraw in favour of Mr. Ghiasuddin.
' If approved the PTO Appendix X already issued will be withdrawn and cancelled and fresh PTO in the name of Mr. Ghiasuddin will be issued."
' On 26-6-1960 the Assistant Settlement Commissioner made the following report:--- "Mr. Ghiasuddin is a claimant. He is an occupant of the. house in question and has filed C.H. Form No, 1129."
' This report is further endorsed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 30th June, 1960, by the word "agreed".
3. The petitioners filed an appeal on 24-6-1970 against the order dated 30th June, 1960 before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Lahore. This was treated as revision and dismissed on 31-1- 1973 by the Additional Settlement & Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore. The petitioners have challenged this order by means of this Constitutional petition.
4. It is evident from the proceedings that the house was transferred initially in favour of the petitioners and one Kabir Ahmed and later on he surrendered his right in favour of Ghiasuddin respondent. This is borne out from the various reports mentioned above. The report of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner dated 18th May, 1960 that the house was transferred to Mr. Ghiasuddin exclusively is patently incorrect. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, therefore, could not have acted on this as the entire house was not transfer'red to Ghiasuddin. The position from the aforesaid proceedings comes to this that the house stood, transferred in favour of the petitioners and Ghiasuddin joinity and Kabir Ahmad having surrendered his share stands eliminated.
5. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner vide his impugned order non-suited the petitioners on the ground of time limitation. This is vehemently controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. According to him an appeal was filed within time as is stated in paras. 5, 6, 8 and 9 of the grounds of appeal dated 24th June, 1970. The original appeal was not available and it is for this reason that the second appeal was filed on 24-6-1970. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner has not adverted to this aspect of the case otherwise he could not have dismissed the revision petition as barred by time. Even otherwise the law laid down is that there is no time for filing the revision petition although the same can be dismissed on ground of laches. In this particular case the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the above explanation there was no laches on the part of the petitioners.
6. From the aforementioned proceedings it is abundantly clear that at one time the house was transferred in favour of the petitioners, respondent Ghiasuddin and one Kabir Ahmad who withdrew from the field leaving the two petitioners and respondent Ghias-ud-Din as the transferees of the property in question. The petitioners as well as the respondent are admittedly the claimant and are in possession of the house for the last several years. Siraj Din son of respondent Ghiasuddin stated before me that his father was in possession of the property from 1947 whereas the petitioners from 1948. This being the position it would be highly unjust to eliminate any one of them to the exclusion of others.
' For foregoing reasons the writ petition is partly accepted and the house in dispute stands transferred in, favour of the two petitioners Habib Ahmad and Muhammad Yaqoob and also respondent Ghiasuddin and after their death in favour of their legal heirs.
' The parties are left to bear their own costs.