' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---The attending facts and circumstances of the case as also the question of law stand succinctly recorded in the leave granting order dated 22nd October, 1995 which reads thus:-- "This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 15-11-1993 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No,1584-R of 1974 filed by the deceased petitioner against the orders dated 13-4-1974 and 4-6-1974 passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Jhang and Settlement Commissioner Sargodha Division, respectively, holding that the deceased petitioner was not transferred Shop No,258-B and transfer of the same in favour of respondent No,1, Muhammad Aftab, was in order. The legal heirs of the deceased petitioner have, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
"(2) In support of the above petition Mr. S.Abul Aasim Jafri, learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that since admittedly the petitioner Ali Muhammad (now deceased) was transferred House No,258 and Shop No,258-B and as admittedly the deceased had inducted respondent No,1 into the shop as his tenant by virtue of rent deed dated 13-3-1970, the finding of the Courts below that the shop in possession of respondent No,1 was not part of above survey numbers transferred to the deceased petitioner, is contrary to the evidence on record.
' "On the other hand Mian Dilawar Mehmood, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for respondent No,1, has argued that factually respondent No,1 is in possession of Shop No,258-B/1 and, therefore, the ;here fact that respondent No,1 was inducted into the shop by the deceased petitioner would not prove the factum that the above shop was also transferred by the Settlement Department in favour of deceased petitioner.
"(3) We have gone through the record. Without expressing ourselves at this stage we are inclined to grant leave to consider the question, whether the finding recorded by the Courts below on the above question is contrary to the evidence on record. Leave is, accordingly, granted."
2. Mr. S. Abul Aasim Jafri, learned Advocate-on-Record for the appellants has simply reiterated their case to the effect that as it is not denied by respondent Muhammad Aftab that Ali Muhammad (now deceased) (i) was transferred House No,258 and Shop No,258-B and (ii) that deceased Ali Muhammad had inducted respondent-Muhammad Aftab into the shop as his tenant by virtue of rent deed dated 13-3-1970, the finding by the functionaries under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), hereinafter referred to as the Act, that Shop No,258-B was not part of above survey numbers transferred to deceased Ali Muhammad, is contrary to the evidence on record. He has referred to report of Settlement Inspector, Jhang dated 7-8-1969 (copy available at pp.49-50 of the main Paper Book) regarding Unit No,258, Block No,1, Jhang Saddar to contend that deceased Ali Muhammad was in fact transferred the disputed Shop No,258-B, Block No,1 situated at Chambeli Market, Jhang Saddar and the same was not available under the law for transfer of respondent Muhammad Aftab under Settlement Scheme No,VIII on the ground of his alleged possession of the same since 1967. The order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 13-4-1974 concluded that his client, being transferee of Shop No,258-B, could not claim another shop according to the Schedule annexed to the Act. According to him, neither the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 13-4-1974 nor that of the Settlement Commissioner dated 4-6-1974 (passed in Revision Petitions brought by deceased Ali Muhammad and respondent Muhammad Aftab, latter pleading that residential portion erected upon Shop No,258-B should have been transferred to him by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner) could be sustained by the learned Judge in Chambers through the impugned judgment dated 15-11-1993.
3. Contrarily, Mr. Dilawar Mehmood, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing on behalf of respondent Muhammad Aftab has contended that neither the assertion that deceased Ali Muhammad could obtain more than one shop under the Act nor the contention that he was possessed of the requisite locus to challenge the transfer of the disputed shop-premises to his client under Settlement Scheme No, VIII, have any force whatsoever. The submission was that Settlement Commissioner was of the correct view (in his order dated 4-6-1974) that: "...I have seen the Application Form CH submitted by the petitioner Ali Muhammad. He mentioned the .Transfer of one room 258-B which is a shop, being used both for business and residential purposes and he was transferred the property 258 as residential portion comprising 2 rooms on the ground and 2 on the upper floor with a courtyard, containing also a shop whereas he had already been transferred 258-B which is in front of the residential portion (opening) in the public street to the north and the shop which is shown 258 in red line had not been transferred to Ali Muhammad petitioner but had to be disposed of independently. It had been transferred to Muhammad Aftab respondent by the order of the DSC as it had not been disposed of. There is no force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner Ali Muhammad that this shop bears No,258-B as 258-E is distinct shop which has been transferred to Ali Muhammad petitioner which was actually applied for by him".
The case of deceased Ali Muhammad that as he had inducted his client into the disputed Shop No,258-B vide rent deed dated 13-3-1970 therefore, he had the right to claim its transfer to him according to law, is of no avail to him in that the questions of fact resolved by the Settlement Authorities on the basis of the material available on the record, is of little help to him in proceedings before the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, it is contended by the learned counsel.
4. We have considered the arguments addressed at the Bar and have also gone through the available material with the help of the learned counsel for the parties. The material submitted by the appellants in the main Paper Book as also in Paper Book Part II, submitted by and on behalf of respondent Muhammad Aftab containing: (1) Concise Statement; (2) Report of Settlement Inspector dated 24-1-1974; (3) Copy of Survey Register; (4) CH Form dated 14-7-1959; (5) Abadkari Form dated 27-6-1949; (6) Written Statement on behalf of respondents Nos.2 and 3/Settlement Commissioner and Deputy Settlement. Commissioner does find mention in the judgments dated 13-4-1974 and 4-6-1974 passed by Deputy Settlement Commissioner and Settlement Commissioner, respectively. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner dealt with the case of deceased Ali Muhammad as below:-- ' "I have examined the file, gone through the entries of, the survey register and weighed the arguments of the parties and inspected the spot. Ali Muhammad has not been issued PTD and as such there is nothing in law to bar the interference of settlement authorities, rather it is a legal duty to dispose of property if there is any by the settlement authorities. The arguments of the learned counsel that at the winding up stage the settlement authorities should desist from interfering, has thus no force. The second plea that the property is in a Mohallah and should be treated as residential one, also, stands rebutted from the record that all the remaining five shops were transferred as shops to the various persons, to hold at this stage that it is residential property, would not be sound and fair. However, my inspection of the spot has also revealed that the property is in a commercial area even today. The place where is located famously known as Chambeli Market. I am thus convinced that it is in a predominantly commercial area. The third argument of the learned counsel that the property was transferred on the basis of possession and as such whatever is with Ali Muhammad cannot legally be interfered with. To meet this argument, I will refer to the survey record. The residential portion 258 was with Abu Turab and the disputed shop with Abdul Rehman. Again All Muhammad, himself stated in his form for allotment that he occupied 258-B and used it both as a shop and house. This takes out all the force of claim of Ali Muhammad. It is thus clear that after transfer of 258-B extended himself over the residential portion, a displaced person cannot be given two shops under the schedule annexed to the Act, the order of transfer, therefore, meant only one Shop No,258-B which has specifically been mentioned by the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner.
' "The result is that the disputed shop is still available for transfer. The rent deed executed by Muhammad Aftab has also been seen by me. It is established that he is in occupation of the shop and is thus entitled for transfer under R.S.S. VIII. This document further shows that the disputed property is a shop and is being used as such. The said shop is transferred to Muhammad Aftab son of Zafar Hussain under Settlement Scheme No,VIII against his Form No,59. Arrears of rent and evaluation price be recovered from him."
' The Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha also considered the material on the record as under:-- ' "Much stress has been laid by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that Shop 258-D was shown in the site plan prepared by the Settlement Inspector Mr. Insar Raza on 7-8-1969. I have sent for the Settlement Inspector who can (sic) fronted with the site plan and their report. He stated that the dispute relates to the Shop 258-E and 258-F marked in red ink on the application of Mst.
Naziran, transferee of property No,258-D which is in the residential portion and the shop as she claimed the transfer of Shop 258-E and 258-F. I have seen the Application Form CH submitted by the petitioner Ali Muhammad. He mentioned the transfer of one room 258-B which is a shop, being used both for business and residential purposes and he was transferred the property 258 as residential portion comprising 2 rooms on the ground and 2 on the upper floor with a courtyard, containing also a shop whereas he had already been transferred 258-B which is in front of the residential portion (opening) in the public street to the north and the shop which is shown 258 in red line had not been transferred to Ali Muhammad petitioner but had to be disposed of independently. It had been transferred to Muhammad Aftab respondent by the order of the DSC as it had not been disposed of. There is no force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner Ali Muhammad that this shop bears No,258-B as 258-E is distinct shop which has been transferred to All Muhammad petitioner which was actually applied for by him. He was however already transferred the residential portion for which he had not submitted any application. Much stress has been laid on behalf of Ali Muhammad petitioner that he rented out the Shop 258 to Muhammad Aftab respondent and that he executed the lease deed. He therefore, could not take the advantage of being in possession of the shop as lessee and he be estopped from claiming the shop under section 116 of the Evidence Act. I am afraid the provisions of the Evidence Act are not attracted to the Settlement proceedings as the provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act are applicable in this case. As Shop 258 had not been transferred to the petitioner, he therefore, could not lease it out to Muhammad Aftab respondent as he had no dominion over this property under his subsequent act, is therefore, invalid and it cannot be considered in his favour. According to the Settlement record Property No,258 is a composite property having 2 residential portions and 6 shops. One of the shop has been transferred to Mst.
Naziran transferee 2 residential portions as according to survey Register 258-D comprises of residential portion and a shop but. It is not the case regarding transfer of residential portion 258 as 258-B which is a shop is an independent unit for which Ali Muhammad petitioner submitted an application he was transferred that shop alongwith residential and business purposes. As he never applied for the residential portion 258, how this could be transferred to him. He however could not claim the shop which also bears the same number. I, therefore, hold that shop 258 was rightly transferred to Muhammad Aftab by the DSC who has paid the transfer price and PTD has been issued to him. The rent of residential portion comprising of 4 rooms which has been transferred to Ali Muhammad petitioner, was reduced from 6/8 to 3/8 whereas the rent of Rs,4 already fixed for 258-B remained intact. There is no mention of the shop in the residential portion in possession of Ali Muhammad petitioner which lends support to the plea of the respondent that the Shop 258 is an independent unit and was not in possession of Ali Muhammad petitioner. I therefore, in view of the above did not find any force in the revision petition filed by Ali Muhammad which is accordingly dismissed. The order dated 13-4-1974 transferring the Shop 258 to Muhammad Aftab is upheld."
5. The learned Judge in Chambers duly considered the respective contentions of the parties, made a reference to the findings recorded by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner on the basis of material on the record and observed: "...It is apparent from the record that Ali Muhammad petitioner has been transferee of Shop No,258-D so the disputed shop No,258 has not been disposed of to any person. When the property was not transferred to the petitioner how he could lease out the same to respondent Muhammad Aftab. It has been concurrently held by the. Two forums below that according to the survey Register Property No,258 is composite property having two residential portions and 6 shops. Shop 258 being independent entity was rightly transferred to the respondent by the two forums below. As already observed above the petitioner is already having residential portion and a shop. The shop transferred to him was No,258-B which was transferred to him through order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 30-12-1961 on CH Form and the report of the Inspector dated 30-5-1961 wherein the Settlement Inspector clearly mentioned that petitioner Ali.Muhammad was in occupation of residential portion and a shop bearing No,258-B. The disputed shop, according to survey register and settlement record, is quite distinct. It is worth-mentioning over there that according to the report Abdur Rehman was in occupation of this shop earlier and the petitioner succeeded in obtaining the possession after his departure from the scene. The present respondent prior to the repeal of the Settlement Laws submitted his form under Settlement Scheme No,VIII and after thorough probe he having been found in occupation was transferred the same and PTD was issued accordingly. In these circumstances, I do not find any force in this petition which is dismissed with no order as to costs".
6. We find that the resolution of factual controversies in the case having come about at the level of the functionaries under the Act only after taking into consideration the relevant material on the record and their arrival at such conclusions being within the four-corners of their respective jurisdictions under the Act, the learned Judge in Chambers was quite right in declining to interfere with such decisions in the exercise of his jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. See Mirza Akram Beg v. Messrs Abdul Ghani and others 1987 SCM R 1284.
7. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.