1. ANWARUL HAQ, J-- -The dispute in this case' relates to an evacuee building site measuring 13 -- manias and situate in Gujranwala Town. It was in the possession of Nizam Din, the father of the first three petitioners before us and the husband of the fourth petitioner. He applied for its transfer on C.
2. S. Form as well as on a Plot Form. His C. S. Form was rejected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on the 27th of April, 1960, and the Plot Form was also rejected on the 4th of May, 1960. His appeal was dismissed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on the 27th of July, 1969, as being barred by time. However, his revision petition was accepted by the learned Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 7th of September, 1961 and the plot was transferred to him on the ground that his application in this behalf had not been disposed of by the subordinate Settlement Officers. While passing the revisional order, the learned Settlement Commissioner ignored the fact that the Plot Form of Nizam Din had been rejected on 4-5-1960 and on that very day, the plot had been divided into three portions and disposed of by public auction.
3. Two of these portions were purchased by respondent No. 1 Sardar Muhammad and the third portion by respondent No: 4, Ata Muhammad: Sardar Muhammad filed a second revision petition which was accepted by the Chief Settlement Commissioner by his - order dated 22-6-1962 anal the case was remanded to the Settlement Commissioner for a fresh decision after hearing Sardar Muhammad. The Settlement Commissioner, accordingly, passed a fresh order on 13-4.1964, holding that the portion sold in favour of At& Muhammad was not in dispute, and dividing one, of the -plots purchased by Sardar Muhammad and giving half of it to Nizam in. As a result of this order. Nizam Din became transferee of 21 marlas only. Along with the constructions standing thereon.
4. Dissatisfied with this order, the legal heirs representatives of Nizam Din filed a writ petition is the High Court which was, however, dismissed by a learned Single Judge by his order dated 2-5-1973.
5. The learned Judge held that it appeared from the order of .The Settlement Commissioner that the plot was divided with the consent of the parties, and that in any case, the claim of Nizam Dire for the transfer of the plot had been first considered by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 4-5-1960 and again by the Settlement Commissioner by his final order of the 13th of April, 1964.
6. The petitioner now seek permission to file an appeal, against the order of the High Court vainly on the ground that under paragraph 13 of the Schedule to the-Displaced Persons. (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, Nizam Din entitled to the transfer of the entire plot measuring 131 marlas, and theta was no. Power in the Settlement with parties to divide the same into three portions In support of this submission the learned counsel bas referred is to Mst. Mahmooda Tahseen v. S. Ijas Hussain Shall Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and others (PLD1965SC).
7. There is no merit in the submission made on behalf or the petitioners. In the first place we find that the point regarding the division of the plot were not all raised before the Settlement authorities and not' even in the High Court. The main basis in the High Court was on the point that the Plat Form of Nizam Din had not been duly considered by the Settlement authorities, but that point was rightly answered against the petitioner. Even otherwise the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel; is of no assistance to the petitioners as to lays down that paragraph 13 provided for the transfer out by of the Plot which is in possession of the applicant and on which there in a Building. It is observed in this judgment that paragraph 13 does not com-template the transfer of' she vacant portion of the plot, although some area may have been left open as a lawn in a house or as a courtyard or for path.
8. Now, in the present case, there is no evidence that the petitioners' Predecessor-in-interest had raised construction on the entire area of 13 marlas.
9. On the contrary, the plan shown to us by the learned counsel indicatives that the late Nizam Din had built some rooms at two extreme ends of the entire plot. In these circumstances, the Settlement authorities bad to decide which portion was to be given to Nizam Din, he not being entitled to the large area of vacant space falling between the rooms but by him. We con--sider, therefore, that the learned Settlement Commissioner was right in transferring to Nizam Din only a portion of the plot containing the major part of the construction raised by him.
10. For the foregoing reasons, no justification is made out for our interference in the matter.
11. The petition accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed.