1. JUDGMENTT MUHAMMAD GUL J.--B dispute in this petition from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 24-1-1975 relates to a portion (hereinafter called the portion in dispute) of a big house in all comprising 24 rooms bearing No. 6-896-897, Mohallah Chah Sayedian, Sialkot City. It is not disputed that the portion in dispute is in possession of Raza Ali respondent, a displaced person from the occupied State of Jammu & Kashmir. The other contestant for its transfer is Abdul Habib, a displaced person from the East Punjab now part of India and also occupant of another part of the house. Besides, they two contestants for the portion in dispute, a number of refugees from the State of Jammu & Kashmir are occupants of different portions of the carne house whichhowever, is not subject-matte--r of dispute In this petition, though at an earlier round of litigation they too had to file Writ Petition No. 799-R of 1962 against Abdul Habib, petitioner herein, to which a passing reference will be made in the sequel.
2. On the commencement of the Settlement proceedings the D. S. C. Sialkot on 10-4-1960 transferred the entire house to one Akbar Ali Haidri, brother of Raza Ali and a. Claimant displaced person from the occupied part of Jammu & Kashmir who claimed transfer of the entire house indirectly through his brother Reza Ali. The matter went in appeal and revision and ultimately before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 799-12 of 1962. This was filed by the other occupant refugees from Jammu & Kashmir, who challenged the transfer of the entire house in favour of Akbar Ali Haidri, oil the ground that subsection (5) of section 30 of Act 28 of 1958 completely prohibited the transfer of evacuee property in occupation of displaced persons from Jammu & kashmir save in favour of displaced persons from fhb same aria. The writ petition succeeded and the High Court by order dated 17-6- 1963 set aside the transfer in favour of Akbar Ali Haidri in so far as it affected the property in possession of displaced persons from Jammu & Kashmir. The High Court went on to observe that the order "will not affect that part of the property which is not iii possession of the petitioners" in that case. It appears that Raza Ali was not a party to that writ petition, quite obviously because he had allowed his brother to apply for the transfer of the whole house.
3. In the meantime Settlement Scheme No. VIII having come into force, Raza Ali as refugee from the occupied part of Jammu & Kashmir filed a K. C. H. Form on 13-10-1966 for the transfer of the portion in dispute on the basis of his actual physical possession and still being available for transfer. He also applied for condonation of delay. The Chief Settlement Commis--sioner condoned the delay and the matter was referred to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for disposal. He however, took the view that the effect of the High Court's order in Writ Petition No. 779-8 of 1962 was that that part of the property which was not in possession of the writ petitioners in that case stood transferred to Abdul Habib the petitioner herein and therefore it was "not available" for transfer to respondent I under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The above order was maintained by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on appeal by Raza Ali. The order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner is dated 19-3-1974.
4. Raza Ali filed a writ petition against the above order which succeeded. The learned Single Judge took the view that in the earlier writ petition filed by the occupants of the other portions of the house was that held was that the transfer of the entire house in favour of Akbar Ali Haidri offended against the provision of section 30(5) of the Act and therefore was without Jurisdiction and that the judgment could not be read as determining the rights of Raza Ali who wasnever a party to that writ petition. It appears that on behalf of the petitioner it was canvassed before the learned Single Judge that section 30(5) which created a bar against the transfer of the property in occupation of displaced persons from the occupied part of Jammu and Kashmir having been omitted by Ordinance XIII of 1964 and Raza Ali not having applied for the transfer of the portion in dispute could not succeed as against the petitioner herein. This argument was repelled on the basis of paragraph 19 of Settlement Scheme No. IV which created a bar in similar terms as the repealed subsection (5) of section 30. The scheme was brought into force under section 16-B of the Act.
5. Therefore, the learned Single Judge accepted the writ petition by Raza Ali thereby preserved his possession.
6. We have heard the petitioner's learned counsel at some length and eve consider that the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the High Court is unassailable. Indeed, that view besides being supported by various precedent cases noticed in the impugned judgment, is also supported by a recent judgment of this Court in C. A. 28 of 1970 which was decided on 13-5-1975.
7. There is no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.