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 n 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, bait that it was occupied as 'Patwari Khans'. The order dated the 25th of January, 1973 of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated the 25 January 1973, transferring the house to the petitioner and cancelling the aforesaid transfer order in favour of respondent was accordingly cancelled, The Deputy Settlement Commissioner was directed to transfer the house to the Revenue Department, and to issue the Permanent -Transfer Deed in the name of the Tehsildar.
4. On behalf of the petitioner it has beers contended that the Tehsildar 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 hey was not found to be in possession of the house and was, therefore, not 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 rouse and thatth 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.
6. The petition is dismissed.