1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-The dispute in this appeal relates to the disposal under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, of house No. H/77, Murree Road, Rawalpindi.
2. At the commencement of the settlement operations the house was in possession of three persons, namely, Khawaja Masood, appellant herein, Ameer Bakhsh, respondent No. 1 and Iftikhar Ali Sepru, respondent No. 3. On 17th May 1960, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, transferred the house to Ameer Bakhsh, respondent No. 1, who was a non-claimant but had entered into an agreement of association with Ali Muhammad respondent No. 2. Iftikhar Ali, respondent, thereupon, filed an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner who held that both Ameer Bakhah and Iftikhar Ali were ineligible for transfer of the house as they were in possession as licensees under the appellant, a local, and directed that the house be transferred to the evacuee pool and disposed of by public auction.
3. Both Ameer Bakhsh and Iftikhar Ali filed separate revision petitions against the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner which were allowed by the Settlement Commissioner on 10th October 1962. He set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Deputy Settlement Com--missioner with the directions that if the house is divisible, the portion in possession of Ameer Bakhsh be transferred to him otherwise the whole of the house shall remain transferred to Ameer Bakhsh as ordered by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 17th May 1960. No writ petition or further revision was filed against this order by Ameer Bakhsh or Iftikhar Ali.
4. On 30th January 1963, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner held the house to, be indivisible and maintained the order of its transfer in favour of Ameer Bakhsh. A revision petition against this order was filed by Iftikhar Ali. Before the Settlement Commissioner, who again held that both Ameer Bakhsh and Iftikhar Ali were ineligible for transfer of the house and directed that it be disposed of, by public auction.
5. Two separate writ petitions were filed against the order of the Settlement Commissioner, one by Ameer Bakhsh and the other by Iftikhar Ali in the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan. The learned Judge who dealt with the petitions held the order of the Settlement Commissioner without lawful authority on the ground that the order passed by his predecessor on 10th October 1962, had attained finality rind that the Settlement Commissioner who dealt with the case in the second instance had no legal authority to revise that order passed by his predecessor.
6. Before the writ petitions were disposed of by the learned Judge, the parties entered into a compromise and desired that the house be apportioned between them. The compromise was accepted by the learned Judge on 9th December 1966. The two writ petitions were accepted and 'the Settlement Commissioner was given the directions to transfer the house to Ameer Bakhsh and Iftikhar Ali in terms of the compromise.
7. In the meantime, Settlement Scheme No. VIII, was enforced on 30th September 1966, which inter alia made locals eligible for transfer of 'avail--able' properties. Taking advantage of this scheme, the appellant filed settlement form under Settlement Scheme No. VIII on the 6th October 1966, claiming that he was in possession since 1947 as regular allottee, and the house was available for transfer to him.
8. Before any order war passed on the form, the appellant submitted an application in the High Court on 14th December 1966, for being impleaded as a party to tire two writ petitions which, as seen, had already been disposed of on 9th December 1966. The application was rejected whereupon the appellant, on the 3rd March 1967, applied for review of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 9th December 1966. This application too was dismissed on the 13th March 1967, on the ground that the appellant not being a party to the writ petitions, had no locus standi to impugned the order passed in them. On merits, the learned Judge also found that the house in dispute was not available for transfer to the appellant under Settlement Scheme No. VIII as it already stood transferred to Ameer Bakhah, respondent, and his associate Ali Muhammad. It was observed that the two writ petitions were admitted to hearing and by order dated 13th January 1964, the operation of the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner on 21st December 1963, was suspended. Consequently, the order of transfer of the house in favour of Ameer Bakhsh and his associate was in the field when Settlement Scheme No. VIII was enforced.
9. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the review application, the appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 9th December 190, by which the two writ petitions had been disposed of in terms of the compromise. The appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench in limine on the grounds that : (1) it was barred by time ; (ii) the appellant had no locus standi to dispute the correctness of the order passed in the two writ petitions filed by Ameer Bakhsh and Iftikhar Ali Sapru ; and (iii) on merits, the appellant had no entitlement to the transfer of the house3tnder Settlement Scheme No. VIII.
10. Leave to appeal was granted on 12th October, 1967, as the eligibility of locals for transfer of houses and shops in their possession which had been earlier dealt with under Settlement Scheme No. I was under considera--tion of the Court in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 109 of 1966 (Nur- ud-Din v. Qaim-ud Din).
11. Since leave to appeal was given in this case the Court had occasion to consider the relevant provisions of Settlement Scheme No. VIII The definition of 'available' houses and shops in Settlement Scheme No. VIII makes it manifest that only those houses and shops were available for transfer to person in possession which had not been already transferred under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. In the instant case, not only the house in dispute stood transferred to Ameer Bakhsh and his associate on 17th May 1960, the transfer in his favour was reaffirmed on 30th January 1963. These orders were in existence and operative when Settlement Scheme No. VIII was enforced. The house was therefore not available for transfer to the appellant.
12. The appeal is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.