1. MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.-This is a review petition against the judgment dated 13tb of May 1975 passed by this Court dismissing the Civil Appeal No. 82 of 1970 filed by the petitioner herein against the respondents from the judgment delivered by a Division Bench of the then High Court of West Pakistan at Lahore to dismissing his Letters Patent Appeal No. 558 of 1966.
2. The dispute relates to the disposal of Property No. 7/656-A, commonly known as Haveli Dewan Ram Chand Milkhi -Ram consisting of about 18 rooms in occupation of the petitioner as well as the private respondents The petitioner is a claimant and had applied on C H form for the transfer of the portion in his possession. In spite of this, on the 22nd of December 1959, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred the entire house to him. This gave rise to a protracted litigation between the parties and the order was even upheld on revision of the respondents dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner on the 31st of January 1966. The respondents writ petition against the order was also dismissed in limine. But they succeeded on their Letters Patent Appeal accepted by a Division Bench of the High Court on the 9th of April 1969 on the finding that the respondents herein were Jammu & Kashmir refugees and the transfer of the portions in their occupation in favour of the petitioner was without lawful authority and the Court directed the Settlement Commissioner to decide the question-of the transfer of these portions in accordance with the provisions of the Settlement Scheme No.6 The petitioner was aggrieved against as the judgment and came up to this Court in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal. On the 8th of July 1969, this Court had granted the necessary leave to appeal to the petitioner. But eventually on the 13th of May 1975, this Court after hearing the parties dismissed on merits the appeal of the petitioner. In conclusion the Court held :---- The transfer of the entire Haveli in his (petitioner's) favour by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, was therefore in violation of the provisions of subsection (5) of section 30 which was in force when the order of transfer was made and also in violation of the provisions of section 16-B and Settlement Scheme No: IV framed thereunder. The order of transfer dated 22nd December 1959, was thus void and-rightly set aside by the High Court."
3. The petitioner has now applied for review of that order.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, He has attempted to argue before us that the locus stands of the respondents to challenge the order of the transfer of the property in favour of the petitioner was not inadvertently examined by this Court and they not having submitted any form for the property in dispute were not entitled to challenge its transfer in favour of the petitioner.
5. Even otherwise; according to the learned counsel there was no finding in favour of the respondents to show that they were in fact displaced persons from Jammu & Kashmir State. But none of these contentions seems to have teen clearly raised before any of the Settlement authorised and the High Court. The case in this Court had proceeded on the persons from Jammu & Kashmir State and this was not even denied by the petitioner at the hearing. We cannot therefore, allow these new pleas to be raised for the first time in these proceedings before us in review. This petition has therefore, no force and is hereby dismissed.