The petitioner, Munshi Jan Muhammad and contesting respondents Muhammad Sharif, Ghulab Din, Muhammad Sadiq and Mst. Sardar Begum are displaced persons from the occupied part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The admitted position is that both the parties are in the physical possession of House No.11/106, Pala Shah Gate, Sialkot City. The property in question was divided and transferred to the respective parties by the learned Additional Commissioner (G)/Notified Officer, Sialkot vide his order dated 25-4-1990. It was observed by the learned Notified Officer that the contesting respondents filed their forms under Settlement Scheme No.R. SS VIII in October, 1973 for the transfer of the property in question to them. These forms were accepted by the learned Notified Officer and the property in their possession was ordered to be transferred to them. The remaining part of the house in question was allowed to remain in possession of the petitioner as its Transferee. This order has been assailed by the petitioner through this petition.
2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the whole house as one unit was transferred by the competent authority to the petitioner. He submits that the part of the house being transferred to the contesting respondents is, as a matter of fact, an integral part of the house in question and as such it cannot be given to the respondents. In support of his plea, learned counsel has relied upon the order having been passed by the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 17-6-1961. Learned counsel states that there were only eight rooms in the house which in fact were convicted into 15 rooms by the contesting respondents. He adds that the contesting respondents for the first time came in possession of the property in March, 1972. The petitioner, therefore, has a better right for the transfer of the whole hodse. Learned counsel has relied upon Messrs Talib Hussain Noor Hussain v. Muhammad Hussain Siddiqi (1968 SCM R 1316) and Mian Zahoor Ahmad v. Mst. Khurshid Ishrat and others (1988 MLD 1966) in support of his plea.
3. There is no force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as both the parties have fairly and justly been accommodated by the learned Notified Officer vide the order dated 15-4-1990. n other words, the house has been found divisible by the competent settlement Authority. In my view the impugned order has definitely been passed in line with the rule laid down in Mst. Shah Jahan Begum v. Mst. Shabbir Fatima and another (PLD 1991 SC 614) and Mst.
Shahzada Begum v. Ahmad Kamal and others (PLD 1991 SC 617). 1 have not been persuaded to interfere with the impugned order in the given circumstances. Learned counsel was unable to point out any legal infirmity much less jurisdictional defects in the impugned order. There is, therefore, no substance in the petition, which is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.