' SH. IJAZ NISAR, J.---This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment, dated 20- 10-1992, passed by the Lahore High Court, whereby the writ petition filed by Natha Masih, respondent No,3 herein, was accepted.
2. The relevant facts are that house bearing No,3/174/2160 and Plot No,2157 were purchased in auction by Sher Muhammad petitioner on 16-4-1974. House No,3/174/2160 was in possession of Ilyas Masih son of Natha Masih. Sher Muhammad filed an ejectment application against Natha Masih respondent and his son Ilyas from Property Nos.2157, 2160/3/174, which was contested by them. Later it came to the notice of the Settlement Authorities that Plot No,3/174/2160-A was a distinct and separate plot from Plot No,3/174/2160 and was still available for transfer. Natha Masih moved an application for its transfer which was accepted and it was transferred to him on 15-6- 1978. Feeling aggrieved by the said transfer, Sher Muhammad petitioner filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner/Administrator, Residual Properties, Sargodha, which was accepted on 28-4-1979, and the order dated 15-6-1978 of the Deputy Administrator, Residual Properties, Sargodha, transferring the property bearing No,3/174/2160-A to Natha Masih, was cancelled.
3. Challenging the order of Additional Commissioner, Residual Properties, Natha Masih respondent filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court. By judgment, dated 20-10-1992, the learned Judge in Chambers accepted the writ petition, set aside the order dated 28-4-1979 and restored the order dated 15-6-1978 of the Deputy Administrator, Residual Properties, whereby the Plot bearing No,3/174/2160-A had been transferred to Natha Masih.
4. Leave to appeal was granted to consider as to whether the learned Judge in Chambers was justified in reversing the finding of fact recorded by the Administrator, Residual Properties, in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that material circumstances belying the claim of Natha Masih respondent were ignored by the High Court and no weight was given to the non- mentioning of the disputed plot in CSC-IV register prepared in the year 1970. He further states that survey at Serial No,37-A had been interpolated which was also not given due consideration by the learned Judge in Chambers.
6. The learned Judge in Chambers observed that Annexure M/1, which formed part of the writ petition, copy of an extract from survey register of the urban properties of the year 1971, showed that Property No,3/174/2160-A measuring 39 x 41 was a distinct and separate property, which existed both the spot and in the record all the time, and as such the Additiom.1 #TBS [Vol. XXXII #TBE Commissioner/Administrator, Residual Properties, Sargodha Division, Sargodha, erred in holding that the said property formed part and parcel of the property purchased by Sher Muhammad in auction.
' The bid sheet clearly shows that Property No, 3/174/2160 alone was put to auction on 16-4-1974.
The Deputy Administrator, Residual Properties, Sargodha, after getting the site inspected from the Settlement Inspector observed that the property in occupation of Natha Masih bore No,3/174/2160- A, and since it was an evacuee property and had not been transferred to anybody, he ordered its transfer to Natha Masih. The property in dispute is mentioned at Serial No,37-A of the survey list as separate and distinct from Property No,3/174/2160 and as such was rightly transferred to Natha Masih respondent.
7. The impugned judgment of the learned High Court is based on proper appreciation of material produced before it and does not suffer from any infirmity calling for interference by this Court.
Consequently, the appeal being without any substance is dismissed and the parties are left to bear their own costs.