1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, J---The dispute in these three connected Appeals Nos. C. As. 157, 161 and 283 of 1970 relates to property No. S. 85-R--3A, Ferozepur Road, Lahore. These have been filed by the different occupants litigating for its transfer and being directed against the same Judgment of the High Court dated 31-1-68 are disposed of together.
2. Of the five occupants of the above premises Wahajuddin and Masood Abmad appellants in C. A.
3. 157 were non-claimants, Mohr Khan appellant in C. A, 161 and one Muhammad Aslam who is not a party to these proceedings were locals while Razia Begum appellant in C. A. 283 wag a claimant displaced person with a verified claim of Rs. 41,040. She associated her husband who had also a verified claim of Rs. 40000. Holding the bungalow after spot inspection as invisible the Deputy Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 11-6-60 transferred the same in favour of Mst. Razia Begum the only claimant displace) person in the field being a regular allottee. The finding as to the indivisibility of the bungalow was consistently upheld by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Settlement Commissioner and the Chief Settlement Commissioner who dismissed the appeal, first revision and second revision filed by Wahajuddin and Masood Ahmad appellants in C. A. 157 respectively by their orders dated 20-10-60, 10-5-61 and 18-7-61. Their Writ Petition No. 565/11 was dismissed vide order dated 24-4-64 and so also was their L. P. A which lingered on for about 6 years and was disposed of vide Division Bench Judgment dated 31-1-58 from which leave to appeal was sought in this Court.
4. The background of C. A. 161/70 filed by Mehr Khan is that he claimed to be in occupation of a portion of the bungalow since 21-5-55 on the basis of an allotment order. His case was that the property was not only divisible but P. T. Os. Dated 15-12-59 duly assigned by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner were also issued to all the occupants in respect of the portions in their respective possession except himself. On being approached, the Additional Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 4-41-60 directed the Deputy Settlement Commissioner also to issue a P. T. O, in his favour which was duly received and diarised in the receipt register of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. Subsequently all the P. T. Os. Were however cancelled and the property having been held to he indivisible was transferred in favour of Razia Begum. Having consistently failed before the Settlement Authorities he preferred Writ Petition 137/R of 1964 which was dismissed by the same Division Bench along the L. P. A. Filed by Wahajuddin and Masood Ahmad appellants in C. A. 157 from which leave to appeal was sought.
5. The case of Razia Begum appellant in C. A. 183/70 briefly was that the house having been held indivisible and having been finally transferred to her a P. T. D. Was also issued in her favour.
6. Wahajuddin and Masood Ahmad appellants in C. A. 157 filed a review petition against the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 18-7-61 which was dismissed on the ground that the scope of review was very limited and an order could be reviewed only in case of an error apparent on the face of the record which teas not discoverable in the case. L. P. A. 168 of 1962 and W. P. 800/R of 1966 filed by Wahajuddin, W. P. No. 2473 of 1963 filed by Mohammad A slam a local resident who is not a party and W. P. No. 137/R of 1964 filed by Mehr Khan were consolidated before the L. P. A.
7. Bench and were disposed of by the impugned Judgment. While upholding the finding of indivisibility of the bungalow the learned Judges dismissed the L. P. A. As also the Writ Petitions filed by Mohammad Aslam and Mehr Khan. However Writ Petition No. 800/R of 1966 filed by Mahajuddin and Masood Ahmad was allowed on the ground that the Chief Settlement Commissioner betrayed ignorance of scope of his Review jurisdiction and was obviously thinking in terms of the restricted scope of the amended section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, the amendment having come into force w. e. f. 13.1.62, whereas the review petition in question pertained to the pre-amendment period. The order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 12-1-66 dismissing the review application was quashed and it was directed that it may be deemed to be pending and decided afresh in accordance with law. It was this part of the D. B. Order dated 31.1-68 which was impugned by Razia begun appellant in G. A. 283 of 1970.
8. All the three petitions for leave try appeal were consolidated and leave was granted vide this Court's order dated 7-11-68.
9. Ira support of Appeals Nos. 157 and 161 of 1970, learned counsel for the appellants co; tended before us that to all intents and purposes the house already stood divided and the findings on the question of divisibility were arbitrarily given in disregard of the admitted position that several families had been settled in the outhouses of the bungalow which itself had conveniently accommodated 5 different families for more than 20 years. It was further submitted that there was ample evidence on the record to show that on 15th of December, 1959 P. T. Os. Were issued to different occupants under the signatures of the Deputy Settlement Commis--sioner which were wrongly cancelled. x t Rat next submitted that Mst. Razia Begun appellant in C. A. 283 of 1970 and respondent in C. As. 157 and 161 of 1470 vide her C. S. Form claimed only the transfer of the portion in her occupation and as such could not be given the entire bungalow.
10. The contentions have no force. As regards the first point that P. T. Os. Were issued by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to the various occupants on 15-12-59 and were later canceled there is ample evidence on the record to show that Mohammad Aslam a local occupant being an employee of the Rehabilitation Department bad manipulated these orders and on being exposed did not pursue the matter further and remained contented with the dismissal of his Writ Petition by the High Court. As regards the question of divisibility, the house was consistently held to be indivisible by all the Settlement authorities on the basis of spot inspection and perusal of the site plan. Mst. Razia Begum being the only claimant displaced person in the field had a prior and preferential right and was rightly transferred the entire bungalow, the finding of indivisibility be outside the scope of not jurisdiction as held by this Court in Ahmad Jamal v. Nazir Ahmad Khan and others (1975 SCMR 24). In the circumstances therefore event if the review applications filed by Wahajuddin and Masood Ahmad were deemed to be pending on the ground of a mere technicality its dismissal in the face of the finding of indivisibility would be a foregone conclusion and its prosecution so exercise in futility. But even otherwise notwithstanding the fact that there were no words of limitation in the unamended section 21 the mere incorrect--ness of the conclusion reached world not furnish a ground for reviewing the order as held by this Court in Lt. Cal. Nawabzada Muhammad Amir Khan v. The Controller of Estate Duty and another (PLD 1962 SC 335).. Again having been taken through the record we are convinced that the High Court's observation about the scope of the Chief Settlement Commissioner's review jurisdiction was based on the erroneous assumption that he had passed the order dismissing, the review application under the amended law which was factually incorrect. As regards the contention that Mst. Razia Begum had applied in her C. S. Form only for the transfer of the portion in her occupation, it may be observed that under the law as it then stood normally an applicant would not be eligible to apply for more than what was in his/her possession. The definition of house as contained in section 2 (4) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act was amended by Ordinance LIII of 1959 which came into force on 28-9-59. It was on account of this change in law that unless held to be divisible, a house was ordinarily transferred as a whole to a deserving occupant. In the circumstances, therefore, no exception could be taken to the transfer of the entire bungalow in favour of Msr. Razia Begum. This would be in accord with the view taken by this Court in Mohammad Rafiq v. First Addl. District Judge and Ex Officio Settle--ment Commissioner (1968 SC LVI R 443).
11. As a result of the foregone discussion we see no force in Civil Appeals 157 and 161 of 1970 which are hereby dismissed while we allow Civil Appeal 283 of 1970. There shall be no order as to costs.