1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED. J.-'There is no dispute that the house in dispute was covered by Settlement Scheme No. VII, and was transferable only to a person who was in occupation of the house.
2. The petitioner claimed that he was in occupation of the house, and was in fact issued a Permanent Transfer Order dated the 20th of January ;1969.
3. The learned Settlement commissioner, however, found that neither the petitioner nor respondent No. 5 was in possession of the house, but that it was occupied as Patwar Khana. The order-dated the 25th of January 1973, of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transfer--ring the house to the petitioner and cancelling the aforesaid transfer order in favour of respondents was accordingly cancelled. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner was directed to transfer the house to the Revenue Department, and to issue the Permanent Deed in the name of the Tahsildar.
4. On behalf of the petitioner it has been contended that the Tahsildar could not be transferred the house as he was not the person in occupation. This contention even if held valid cannot help the petitioner because he~ was not found to be in possession of the house and was, therefore, noel entitled to its transfer. This finding was arrived at by the Settlement Commissioner who was fully competent to do so, and the High Court rightly. Refused to interfere with the finding.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the statement of the Patwari put in for the first time in this Court saying that' the petitioner was in occupation of the house and that none else occupied it. Obviously this statement cannot be taken into consideration. It was never placed before either the Settlement Commissioner or the High Court.