1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-The dispute in this case relates to an evacuee property situated at Brandreth Road, Lahore. It consists of a shop on the ground floor and some residential accommodation above it. The shop is in the occupation of the respondent No. 1 herein as an allottee and the petitioner is in occupation of a portion of the residential portion above. Both the petitioner and the said respondent No. 1 applied for its transfer as claimants. The respondent No. 1 filed a C. S. Form and the petitioner filed a C. H. Form.
2. Before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner both the claimants on the 18th November 1959, made statement which were reduced into writing signed by them and countersigned by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The petitioner by his statement withdrew his claim for the transfer of the property. Accordingly, on the 26th November 1959, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, treating the building as an indivisible unit, transferred it to the respondent No. 1 by canceling his C. H. Form for the transfer of another building at Nisbet Road, Lahore.
3. From this order the petitioner filed an appeal which was out of time, along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act alleging that it had been incorrectly recorded by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner that he had made a statement giving up his claim to the transfer of the property. According to the petitioner his signatures were obtained on a document by an Inspector of the Department without disclosing to him the contents of the document.
4. The Additional Settlement Commissioner condoned the delay, heard the appeal and allowed it on the ground that the shop and the residential portion must, as a matter of policy, go separately. A revision from this order was rejected by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner who thought that the petitioner had been subjected to some foul play and, therefore, the Additional Settlement Commissioner was right in accepting his appeal after condoning the delay.
5. On second revision, however, -the Settlement and Rehabilita--tion Commissioner with powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, restored the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner holding that the petitioner, who was an educated person, was bound by his statement relinquishing his right to the property.
6. The petitioner then invoked the special jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 98 of the Constitution of 1962. A learned Single Judge accepted the petition and quashed the impugned order of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner with the powers of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, expressing grave doubts about the genuineness of the statement attributed to the petitioner. On Letters Patent Appeal, however, the Division Bench reversed the order of the learned Single Judge and restored the last order of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner with powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner.
7. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal and on his behalf it has been strenuously contended that the Letters Patent Bench was wrong in interfering with the order of the learned Single Judge. We are, however, unable to agree with this contention, because, on the face of it, the question as to whether the petitioner had in fact made a statement before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner surrendering his claim to the property was a disputed question of fact and such a disputed question of fact could not have been adjudicated upon in a proceeding under Article 98 of the Constitution.
8. The contention that the Chief Settlement Commissioner should not have interfered with the concurrent finding of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commis--sioner in second revision, is equally without substance, for, under the Settlement law the Chief Settlement Commissioner is not bound by the concurrent findings of his subordinates. He has even powers to suo moto revise the orders of his subordinate authorities.
9. As already pointed out the petitioner is an educated person and it is difficult to countenance his plea that he signed the document without reading its contents. The Settlement Authorities have every power to treat a composite building either as a shop or as a residential house under subsection (12) of section 2 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958.
10. The fact that the Settlement Commissioner had treated it as a shop and transferred it on the basis of C. S. Form is enough to show that this discretion was exercised by a competent Settlement authority. No illegality has, therefore, been committed by transferring the entire property to the respondent on the basis of his C. S. Form. We see no ground, therefore, to interfere, in this matter.
11. This petition is, accordingly dismissed.