1. MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal from an order dated the 24th April, 1974, passed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court at Lahore accepting a writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 herein against the petitioners.
2. The dispute in this case relates to the disposal of three storeyed house bearing No. S. 1-114-S-28 situated at Kacha Nisbet Road, Lahore. It was in the possession of a number of persons, but the contest was confined between petitioners, namely Gulzar Ahmad and Muhammad Ashrq sons of Shahbaz alias Sajha, Muhammad Siddiq, Muhammad Zahoor, Muhammad Hussain and Mst. Inayat Bibi respondent No. 1. All of them are claimants and allottees in possession of different portions from different dates and had applied on their respective C. H. Forms for the transfers.
3. On the 10th December, 1959, Mr. J. D. Malik, Additional Settlement Commissioner transferred the entire house to respondent No. 1 behind the back of other interested parties. Afterwards by a separate order passed on the 20th February, 1960, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred the entire house in favour of Muhammad Siddiq, Muhammad Zahoor and the petitioners jointly by association. This order gave rise to three appeals.
4. On the 19th December, 1960, the Additional Settlement Commissioner accepted the appeal of Mr. Inayat Bibi respondent No. 1 and set aside the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner passed on the 20th February, 1960. He, at the same time, expressed his inability to interfere with the order dated 10th December, 1959 passed by MY. J. D. Malik, Additional Settlement Commissioner, in favour of respondent No. 1 and directed that the aggrieved parties may suitably go up against it before the higher autho--rities. In these circumstances, on the 28th March, 1961, the Settlement Commissioner in revision set aside all the previous transfer orders concerning this property and remanded the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for disposal afresh after hearing all the interested parties.
5. After the remand on the 6th July, 1961, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner altogether eliminated respondent No. 1 and transferred the entire house in favour of Muhammad Siddiq, Muhammad Zahoor, Muhammad Hussain and, the two petitioners herein as the claimants in possession of major portion. This order gave rise to three appeals against it. Muhammad Siddiq, Muhammad Zahoor and the two petitioners filed their appeal against Muhammad Hussain fur his exclusion altogether from the transfer and Muhammad Hussain fled a cross appeal against them claiming for like transfer of a greater portion to him. Mst. Inayat Bibi, respondent No. 1, in her appeal, claimed the transfer of the entire house in her favour to the exclusion of all others. On the 3rd November, 1963, Mr. S. Muhammad Azhar, Addi--tional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore disposed of the three appeals by a single order. He vertically divided the house into two units and transferred one of them to respondent No. 1 and the other in favour of Muhammad Siddiq, Mohammad-Zahoor and the two petitioners to the exclusion of Muhammad Hussain.
6. A revision filed by Muhammad Hussain against the order was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner. But lie succeeded in writ petition No. 143-R of 1968 and on the 3rd February, 1966, a learned Judge of the then High Court of West Pakistan at Lahore held that Muhammad Hussain had a superior right to the transfer ac compared to .Muhammad Zahoor and the two petitioners herein and declared that the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner refusing to transfer a portion of the house was without lawful authority and had no legal effect. In the result Muhammad Hussain along with Muhammad Siddiq were held entitled to the transfer of the portion.
7. Muhammad Siddiq. Muhammad Zahoor and the petitioners had also filed a revision No. 210-A of 1966 against the transfer of the portion of the property to Mr. Inayat Bibi. This revision was dismissed separately by Mr. Muhammad Zafarullah. Settlement Commissioner on the 2nd Febru-- ary, 1967.He observed that the division of the property by Mr. S. Muhammad Azhar, Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, made on the 3rd November, 1962 was fairest possible and that he had rightly held the house to be divisible and justly divided the same into two portions.
8. The portion transferred to respondent No. 1 by the Additional Settlement Com--missioner was allowed to remain with her and the remaining part of the house was transferred to Muhammad Siddiq and Muhammad Hussain jointly in the light of the decision taken by the High Court on his writ petition.
9. Long afterwards on or about the 19th June, 1970, the petitioner moved a petition under section 21(3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Re--habilitation) Act 1958, read with section 152 of .The Civil Procedure Code for interpreting and explaining the precise nature and effect of the order dated 2nd February, 1967, passed by the Settlement Commissioner in Settle--ment Revision No. 210-A of 1966. On the 14th September, 1970, Khan Muqarrab Khan, the then Settlement Commissioner. Lahore disposed of this petition, in an attempt to interpret and explain the effect of the remand ear--lier order dated 2nd February, 1967, and held that the portion in possession of the petitioners was not transferred to respondent No. 1 by the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 2nd February, 1967 or of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 3rd November, 1962.
10. Dissatisfied, the res--pondent No. 1 filed an application under section 21(3) of the Act, read with section 152 of the C. P. C. For review of the order dated 14th September, 1970 thus passed by against her. Similarly, Muhammad Hussain also filed a separate review application against that order. The two were disposed of together by Khan Mubarrab Khan, Settlement and Rehabilitation Commis-- sioner by s single order passed on the 22nd June, 1971.
11. In these circumstances, respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition against those orders. On the 24th April, 1974, s learned Judge of the Lahore High Court at Lahore accepted her writ petition holding that Khan Muqarrab Khan, Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner had no jurisdiction under section 21(3) of the Act to review the order dated 2nd February, 1967 passed by his predecessor: Hence this petition before us for special leave to appeal by the two petitioners.
12. It cannot be denied that in the final event the only operative order dividing the property was the one passed by Mr. Muhammad Zafarullah, Settlement Commissioner. Lahore on the 2nd February, 1967 in Settlement Revision No. 210-A of 1966 read with the order dated 3rd Novem--ber, 1962, passed by S. Muhammad Azhar, Additional Settlement Commis--sioner. Lahore. Before us the learned counsel for the petitioner ventured to argue that on a proper interpretation of these two orders the two petitioners herein were entitled to retain the portion in their possession which did not form part of the unit transferred to Mst. Inayat Bibi, respondent No. 1. It is asserted before us that this aspect of the case of the petitioners had escaped the notice of the High Court and was not examined in depth. The operative order in the field transferring the portion to respondent No. 1 was passed by Mr. S. Muhammad Azhar, Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commis-- sionersenior on the 3rd November, 1962. This, division of the house in, her favour was ultimately upheld and rectified by the order dated 2nd February, 1967 passed by Mr, Muhammad Zafarullah, Settlement Commissioner, Lahore in disposing of the Settlement Revision No. 210-A of 1966. Mr. S. Muhammad Azhar. Additional Settlement Commissioner in his order dated 3rd Novem--ber. 1962, on reference to the plan (Exh. 1) observed that Mst. Inayat Bibi was living in a portion of the house which was entirely independent and was approached by a separate deohri and staircase and that this portion could be easily divided from the rest of the house by a vertical division and, In the concluding portion of his order he held that :--- " Mst. Inayat Bibi is transferred the deohri along with the staircase which is in possession of one Mst.
13. Anwari Begum along with her three rooms in the first floor and the entire corresponding accommodation in the ground, second and third floors. Her this transferred portion is from ground floor to the top floor and is separate and independent, that the rest of the house which includes two deohries and a garrage which is at resent in possession of Mst. Anwari Begum from ground floor to top floor, is transferred jointly to Muhammad Siddique. Muhammad Zahoor, Gulzar Ahmad and Muhammad Ashiq, which they will divide themselves privately."
14. From the above, we are left in no doubt that so far as Mst. Inayat Bibil was concerned, she was transferred the portion given to her which was divid--ed by a vertical division from the ground to the top floor as a separate inde--pendent unit. Under the same order the petitioners were transferred the other divided portion of the house jointly with Muhammad Siddique an Muhammad Zahoor. This fact in itself fully belies the claim belatedly advanced by the petitioners. It shows that the petitioners while retaining the portion that had fallen to the share of respondent No. 1, could not have been transferred the other portion of the house jointly with Muhammad Siddique and Muhammad Zahoor under the basic order dated the 3rd November, 1962 passed by Mr. S. Muhammad Azhar, Additional Settlement Commissioner, Lahore. It is obvious that under this order they could not have been give the portions on the two sides of the dividing line.
15. This petition has, therefore, no force and is rejected.
16. Petitiondismissed.