1. FAZLE-AKBAR, J.-The dispute in this case is with respect to three storeyed building bearing Nos.
2. F/2776 and F/2789 in Sheranwala Gate, Lahore.
3. House No. F/2776 which was put in the earmarking list was drawn by lots in the name of Mst. Abida and a P. T. O. Was issued to her and to her associate Mst. Hamida, in 13th December 1959. On 21st February 1960, House No. F/2789 was transferred to Muhammad Yousuf and his father Haji Muhammad Boota and a P. T. O. Was issued in their favour on 28th March 1960. On 19th April 1960, Mst. Abida and Mst. Hamida filed an application that No. 2789 was also a part of House No. 2776 and it should be included in their P. T. O. The Deputy Settle--ment Commissioner accepted their petition and included No. 2789 in the P. T. O. Which had been issued to them. Yousuf and Haji Boota then filed an application before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner stating that No. 2789 being a separate property should not have been included in the P. T. O. Of Mst. Abida and Mst: Hamida. As there were two transfer orders in respect of the same property, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner after obtaining necessary sanction to review the previous order held that the two numbers related to the same property and as such both the numbers should be included in the P.
4. T. O. Issued to Mst. Abida and Mst. Hamida and his order was also upheld in appeal and on revision.
5. Muhammad Yousuf and Haji Muhammad Boota thereupon moved a writ in the High Court. The learned Single Judge who heard their writ petition upheld the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 21st February 1960, transferring House No. 2789 to Yousuf and Boota and set aside the subsequent orders by which the said number was included in the P. T. O. Of Mst. Abida and Mst. Hamida and his order was upheld on appeal by the Letters Patent Bench. Mst. Abida and Mst. Hamida seek special leave to appeal against the order of the High Court.
6. It was contended, inter alia :-
(i) that the final authority in the Settlement Department in deciding that both the numbers relate to one and the same property, acted within his power and as such the High Court was not justified in setting aside the said order, and
(ii) that in any event if the said order suffered from any irregularity, the High Court should have remanded the case for disposal in accordance with law.
7. Security Rs. 1,000.