1. ' SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioners have sought leave to appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court dated 18-7-1992 whereby Writ Petition No, 102-R of 1964 filed by the petitioner (Muhammad Ikram Khan, deceased) was dismissed.
2. ' Relevant facts of the case are that petitioner No, 1 (a), Shamim Ahmed Khan, was allotted an evacuee house bearing No, 16-G, Model Colony, Jhelum while he was posted as Overseer in P.W.D., on 18-6-1951. In his application for allotment of the house, petitioner No, 1 (a) had shown, in the list of his dependants, the name of his father Muhammad Ikram Khan (deceased). The allotment order made in favour of the said Shamim Ahmed Khan (petitioner No, 1 (a)) expressly provided that it will be valid for a period of only 3 years from 1-7-1949 unless terminated by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner for contravention of any term laid down in the Government policy. It was also mentioned that the allotment to the Government servant will hold good only for the period of his posting to the station. The allotment in favour of the said Shamim Ahmed Khan was cancelled upon his transfer from Jhelum and ejectment proceedings were started in the year 1955. The Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner, Jhelum on 21-2-1956 directed ejectment of the said Shamim Ahmed Khan on the ground that he had been transferred from Jhelum. The father of Shamim Ahmed Khan (deceased Muhammad Ikram Khan) challenged the ejectment order before Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, Peshawar which was rejected on 21-9-1956 and revision against the said order was also rejected on 5-12-1956. Both Shamim Ahmed Khan and his father Muhammad Ikram Khan (deceased) filed Writ Petition No, 1053 of 1957 in Lahore High Court challenging the cancellation of allotment and passing of ejectment order against them. The writ petition was dismissed on 711-1959. However, while rejecting the writ petition the following observations were made by the learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court:-- "Before I part with this case, I would like to make a note of the fact that the counsel for the petitioner stated before me that the petitioner Shamim Ahmed Khan has got a claim for urban property which had been duly verified and that he would be able to claim the transfer of this house under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act of 1958, and in view of this subsequent legislation, which has come into being after the passing of the order of ejectment, his ejectment would be against the spirit of this latter statute. This is a point which does not affect the validity of the order of ejectment, but I am sure, this will be taken into consideration by the Rehabilitation Act authorities if a representation is made to them- in this respect."
3. ' The house was in the meantime allotted to respondent No, 4 (Muhammad Hanif) in the above petition by the Rehabilitation Authorities in March 1956. Notwithstanding the ejectment order passed against Shamim Ahmed Khan, his father, Muhammad Ikram Khan (deceased) submitted a C.H. Form seeking transfer of the house under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act only). Respondent No, 4 who was an allottee of the house by the Rehabilitation Authorities also filed his N.C.H. Form under Settlement Scheme No, I for transfer of the house. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner concerned passed order dated 3-11-1960 holding that deceased Muhammad Ikram Khan was not entitled for the transfer of house and transferred the same in favour of respondent No,
4. Deceased Muhammad Ikram Khan filed an appeal against the above order of Deputy Settlement Commissioner which was rejected by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 7-12-1960.
4. Deceased Muhammad Ikram then preferred a revision before the Settlement Commissioner which too was dismissed on 12-6-1962. Deceased Muhammad Ikram Khan then filed Writ Petition No, 102- R/64 challenging the orders of Settlement Commissioner, Additional Settlement Commissioner and Deputy Settlement Commissioner which have been dismissed by the impugned order by the learned Judge in Chambers.
5. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner contended before us that irrespective of the cancellation of the allotment of Shamim Ahmed Khan, the son of deceased Muhammad Ikram Khan, the deceased had an independent right to apply for transfer of above property in view of undisputed possession of the deceased over the property applied for. The above contention was considered by the learned Judge in Chambers in the light of section 2(6) of the Act and the relevant notifications issued in this behalf from time to time, and it was held that in view of the order of the cancellation of allotment of Shamim Ahmed Khan and the order of ejectment passed against him by the Rehabilitation Authorities, the petitioner (Muhammad Ikram Khan, deceased) could not be deemed to be in undisputed possession of the house in question. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners before us that the order dismissing Writ Petition No, 1053/57, was not pursued any further by the petitioners which attained finality. Since the order of eviction passed against the petitioners by the Rehabilitation Authorities held the field throughout, the deceased petitioner could not be deemed to be in undisputed possession of the house. In these circumstances, the finding of the learned Judge in Chambers, holding that Muhammad Ikram Khan (deceased) was not entitled to the transfer of house on the basis of his alleged possession against the C.H. Form submitted by him under the Settlement Scheme No, I, is unexceptionable. No case for interference is nude out. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.