' MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that an evacuee property bearing No,M-153 and situate at Edward Road (now Bank Road) Rawalpindi, was transferred on 27-1-1960, by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, to three persons, namely, Mian Abdus Sattar, a non-claimant was transferred portion "A", A.K. Khalid a local was transferred portion "B" and Akhtar Ali Jafari, a claimant was transferred portion "C". Later on the Settlement Commissioner, vide his order dated 13-7-1960, excluded A.K. Khalid from the list of transferees of the property being local. The portions "B" and "C" of the building was held to be one unit and transferred to Akhtar Ali Jafari. A.K. Khalid challenged the aforesaid order through Writ Petition No,1711-R of 1963, in the High Court which was dismissed on 28-4-1966. He preferred LPA No,1040 of 1966, against the order dated 28-4-1966, of the learned Single Judge and during the pendency of the same, Mst. Yasmin Iqbal appellant herein, for the first time, on 25-4-1973, moved an application to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner seeking disposal of NCH Form No,789-A/RP-II reportedly filed by her on 17-8-1959, for the transfer of portion "B" of the property. The appellant was informed on 11-5-1973, that as the matter was sub judice in the High Court, pursuant to LPA No,1040 of 1966 filed by A.K. Khalid, she may approach the competent Court for the relief sought by her, whereafter on 21-5-1973, the appellant moved application in the High Court, for impleading herself as a party to the appeal. The application was ordered to come up alongwith the main appeal.
2. The LPA was dismissed on 14-3-1974 by a Division Bench of the High Court but she did not appear to have attended the Court, as there is no mention about her application in the judgment passed in appeal on that date.
' The application dated 25-4-1973, seeking disposal of NCH Form was also dismissed on 13-3-1975, by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on the ground that he was not competent to reopen the case in view of the judgment dated 14-3-1974 of the High Court in LPA, wherein the transfer of the disputed portion "B" of the property to Akhtar Ali Jafari was maintained. She challenged that order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, in revision before the Settlement Commissioner which was dismissed on 27-8-1975, holding the same incompetent, as it was not a pending matter.
Afterwards she moved another application for disposal of NCH Form and that too was dismissed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, ultimately the appellant filed on 14-7-1977 Writ Petition No,958/R of 1977, in the High Court, seeking direction to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to deal with NCH Form filed by her. The learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court vide- impugned judgment dated 21-7-1991, dismissed the Writ Petition.
3. Leave to appeal against the impugned judgment was granted by this Court on 9-2-1992, to consider the entitlement of the appellant for the transfer A of the disputed portion of the property on the basis of the contentions raised by her learned counsel and the same are mentioned in the leave granting order which reads: "That case of the appellant is that she is non-claimant displaced person. She is in occupation of House No,153-B, Bank Road, Rawalpindi, since July, 1954. The house constitutes a part of a building comprising three independent portions. As a non-claimant displaced person in possession of the house before 20-12-1958, she was entitled to the transfer of the same under Settlement Scheme No,1. She submitted NCH Form in respect of the said portion on 17-8-1959 but the form submitted by the appellant had not been disposed of.
' Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court has interfered with a finding of fact in constitutional jurisdiction recorded by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner that the appellant has filed the NCH Form in 1959. The learned counsel has referred to the order dated 13-3- 1975, passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner which reads as hereunder:-- ' On the request made by the appellant, I have also visited the site and found that the house in her possession is absolutely an independent one with separate entrance having no connection whatsoever with House No,M/153-C. Moreover, it is also a fact that the appellant is a proper applicant for the transfer of the property in question and has filed Form NCH bearing No,789- A/RWP-II, dated 17-8-1959 under Settlement Scheme No,1 and has possession on the property in dispute since before 20-12-1958. She may have a very strong case, yet the difficulty is that the case of transfer of the property in dispute stands decided up to the level of the High Court, which is titled as AX. Khalid v. S.A.A. Jafferi vide order dated 14-3-1974."
' Learned counsel submitted that the form submitted by the appellant has not been disposed of and the appellant is entitled to the transfer of the house in her occupation. This Court in Barkat All v.
Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (PLD 1991 SC 610), has observed that 'the Courts exercising Constitutional jurisdiction may grant or withhold relief full or partial in exercise of discretion and/or in aid of jurstice at this stage of settlement operation which had almost concluded.' In Shah Jahan Begum v. Shabbir Fatima (PLD 1991 SC 614), it has been observed that 'Supreme Court, in its Constitutional jurisdiction as available to High Court under Article 199, would try wherever possible, in the settlement cases, to adjust and accommodate as many displaced persons as possible". In Shahzada Begum v. Ahmad Kamal (PLD 1991 SC 617) this Court reiterated the rule that 'One of the main and important objects of the enactment was to accommodate and adjust as many displaced persons as possible'."
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at some length and perusing the record, it becomes clear that, Property No,153-B was allotted to A.K. Khalid on 13-3-1958 and he came in possession of it, on 20-3-1958. He retained possession uptil 1964 and thereafter inducted the appellant and her husband in the premises. He contested for its transfer but failed before the Settlement Commissioner on 13-7-1960, and before the learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, where his writ petition was dismissed on 28-4-1966. It appears that at that juncture, appellant for the first time inspected the file through her counsel on 27-9-1967, wherein significantly mentioned about her possession of the property but made no reference about the filing of the NCH Form. In the meantime A.K. Khalid filed L.PA. No,1040/66 against the order dated 28-4-1966 of the learned Single Judge and during the pendency whereof AA. Jafari the transferee of the property on 9-4-1974 moved application for ejectment of A.K. Khalid, the appellant and her husband from the property in dispute. In the detailed reply to the ejectment petition, filed by the appellant again, she did not mention about the filing of N.C.H. Form. On the contrary A.K. Khalid on 5-9-1974, filed reply to the ejectment petition, wherein categorically stated that he had left possession of the house in 1964 and allowed the appellant and her husband to occupy the premises temporarily. It is important to note that the property in dispute had always been claimed by A.K. Khalid on the basis of his possession since before 20-12-1958, and at no stage appellant or her husband was shown in possession of the premises with him. The resume of the above noted facts rather lend sufficient support to the finding of the learned Single Judge that the filing of NCH Form by the appellant reportedly in the month of August, 1959 was doubtful. There is nothing on the record to show that she was in occupation of the disputed property prior to 1964 when as given, in writing by A.K. Khalid it was he who inducted the appellant and her husband in the premises.
5. Moreover, even after inspection of the file in 1967, she did not challenge the order of the transfer of the property in favour of AA. Jafari passed in 1960 by the Settlement Commissioner and thereafter confirmed by the High Court in 1966, and preferred to move another application for disposal of NCH Form on 25-4-1973.
6. We have also considered the observation of the Settlement Authorities made in 1975, on the applications of the appellant but the same are of no legal significance because the property in dispute stood already transferred to a claimant in 1960 by Settlement Commissioner as one unit, without any challenge from the appellant despite knowledge of the transfer of property in 1967. The transfer order was confirmed by the High Court firstly with the dismissal of writ petition in 1966 and ultimately by dismissal of LPA in 1974.
7. The observations, in response to the applications of appellant made by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner were not only ex parte, without hearing the transferee but also without jurisdiction being made oblivious of the Repeal of the Evacuee Laws since 1-7-1974.
8. We have also taken into consideration, the precedent referred in the leave granting order, but the factual and legal position evolved in the case, establish that the same are materially distinguishable and not applicable in the circumstances of the case in hand. In the instant case, the property in dispute stood validly transferred to a claimant as a house, almost a decade prior to a plea raised by a non-claimant, which has ultimately been proved to be untrue. It is not the case, where one party has a letter claim, than the other, and by exercise of judicial discretion in writ jurisdiction more than one displaced persons could be adjusted or accommodated. In this case the appellant's conduct for not pursuing the NCH Form if at all, filed for a long time, the entry in relevant register itself doubtful, possession over the property not proved before 1964 and not challenging the orders of transfer of the disputed Property in favour of the claimant transferee, disentitles her from the exercise of discretion in Constitutional jurisdiction in her favour prejudicial to the Interest of the opposite party. In our view the conclusion reached and the inferences drawn from the documents available on the record by the learned Ingle Judge in Chambers are consistent and unexceptionable.
9. The upshot of the above discussion is that, this appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed, with costs.