' This Constitutional petition is directed against the order, dated 8-10-1979 of the Administrator, Residual Properties, Lahore Division, Lahore, maintaining the order, dated 22-7-1979 of the Deputy Administrator (R.P.) Centre II, Faridkot House, Lahore, transferring Property No,S-III-3-S-26/A Kabir Street, Paisa Akhbar, Lahore, in favour of respondent No,1.
2. Briefly stated, Haji Allah Ditta successor of petitioners Nos.1 to 3 filed C.H. Form for the transfer of House No,S-III-3-S-26/A Kabir Street Paisa Akhbar while Ghulam Qadir, since died petitioner No,4 filed form for the transfer of the House No,S-III-3-S-26 of the same street and by order, dated 26-1- 1960 the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred portion-1 of Property No,S-III-3-S-26 in favour of Haji Allah Ditta while the second portion in favour of Muhammad Sharif and his father Ghulam Qadir. An uncertified copy of the order is at page 23 of the file. Faiz Muhammad father of respondent No,1 Abdul Razzaq filed a miscellaneous application before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner against the transfer and the same was rejected on 1-4-1971. Faiz Muhammad also filed an appeal against the order of transfer dated 26-1-1960 which was rejected by the Settlement Commissioner on 28-4-1976. It was observed that the appeal filed by Faiz Muhammad was barred by time.
3. Against the aforesaid order, dated 26-1-1960 Faiz Muhammad filed Writ Petition No,6/R of 1976 and the same was also dismissed by order of this Court on 29-1-1976. In the meantime the aforementioned Faiz Muhammad also filed a civil suit for declaration and mandatory injunction against the petitioner challenging the transfer dated 26-1-1960 but this too was dismissed on 16-9- 1976. During the pendency of the suit status quo order was claimed and the same was declined by the learned Civil Judge and Revision Petition No,409 of 1975 against this was also dismissed by this Court on 15-9-1975.
4. Ghulam Qadir transferee of the second portion filed ejectment petition against Faiz Muhammad which was granted and the appeal filed by him was also rejected on 6-2-1975.
5. It so happened that respondent No,1 Abdul Razzaq son of Faiz Muhammad filed R.P. Form No,493 dated 15-11-1978 on the ground that House No,S-III-3-S-26/A was available and the same may be transferred to him and this prayer was contested by the petitioners that the property had already been transferred as No,S-III-3-S-26. Treating Property No,S-III-3-S26/A as independent the Deputy Administrator by his order, dated 28-3-1979 transferred the same in favour of respondent No,1 whereupon Revision Petition No,30 of 1979 was filed and the same rejected on 7-5-1979 by the Administrator (R.P.), Lahore Division, Lahore. These two orders are impugned in this writ petition.
6. The main plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that no property such as S-III-3-S- 26/A existed and there is only one Property No,SIII-S-3-26 which already stood transferred in favour of the petitioners but this stand of the petitioners was rejected.
7. The respondent has filed written statement and reliance is placed on Annexure R-1/A, copy of the assessm ent of the Lahore Municipal Corporation relating to the year 1940 where Property No,S-III- 3-S-26 is owned by one Jaswa nt Singh Chaula and similar is a copy of the PA. List relating to the year 1946 Annexure R-1/B. Reliance is placed also on the copy of the assessment of the Lahore Municipal Corporation relating to the year 1944-45 Annexure R-1/C to the effect that the Property No,S-III-3-S-26/A is a different unit and owned by Shr. Jaspal Kaur wife of S. Tirlok Singh Chaula and the same entry is repeated in the copy of P.A. List relating to the year 1946 which is Annexure R/1/D.
Another assessm ent copy of the Municipal Corporation relating to the year 1952-53 Annexure R/1/E is placed on the record to show that Property No,S-III-3-S-26/A was under the ownership of Shr.
Jaspal Kaur. All the aforementioned documents are certified copies but these are not admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners pleading that Property No,S-III-3-S/26 and Property No,S-III- 3-S-26/A are one property. The petitioners themselves have produced a photostat of PA. List relating to the year 1946 which is Annexure "N" at page 69 of the file showing that the Property No,S- III-3-S26/A existed on the record. The C.H. Form filed by Allah Ditta is also indicative of the fact that they have applied for the transfer of Property No,SIII-3-S-26/A while Ghulam Qadir for the transfer of the Property No,S-III-3-S26. In view of this unimpeachable documentary evidence it cannot be said that Property No,S-III-3-S-26/A is the same as Property No,S-III-3-S-26. The transfer order dated 26-1-1960 also shows that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner disposed of the Property Nos.S-III-3-S-26 and not S-III-3-S26/A and therefore, the latter property was available for transfer and the same was rightly disposed of by the impugned orders in favour of respondent No,1. A sketch marked A by me has already been produced by the petitioner on the file of writ petition and the disputed property has been shown by the petitioner in red which consists of two bigger rooms, one small room, courtyard, kitchen, bath, stairs and a passage. This sketch is the certified copy and the accommodation mentioned therein is also admitted by the learned counsel and the respondent present in the Court. The portion marked red is shown on the ground floor and then there is also a first floor and the second floor. It is admitted by one of the petitioners or his representative present in presence of his learned counsel that the aforementioned red portion was in occupation of the respondent since 1950 but he is not residing there which was vehemently controverted by the respondent and his learned counsel. Whatever may be the position_ the fact still remains that the portion marked red has been transferred to the respondent as Property No,S- III-3-S-26/A which was not subject-matter of transfer in the earlier litigation. It has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Mst. Shahzada Begum v. Ahmad Kamal and 18 others PLD 1991 SC 617 that maximum number of persons are to be accommodated. The possession of the respondent since 1950 is admitted and there is no earthly reason why this portion No,S-III-3-S- 26/A on the ground floor be not treated as a separate property as held in the impugned order. In this view of the matter the two orders passed in favour of respondent No,1 are in accordance with law and do not admit of any illegality warranting interference by this Court.
' For reasons stated above the writ petition is dismissed but without any order as to costs.