1. QAISAR KHAN, J.-Evacuee Property bearing No. S-75-R-43 situated in Old Anarkali Main Bazar consists of a shop and a residential portion over it. The property vas transferred to Abdul Ghani (predecessor-in-interest of respondents 1, 2 and 3) on the 16th of May 1961. In a dispute with respect to the correction of numbers of certain houses and shops transferred to various persons the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 28th of August 1953 transferred property No. 24 to Mustafi Khan and repelled the contention of Abdul Ghani to the effect that property No. 24 was a part of property No. 43 transferred to him. Abdul Ghani filed an appeal against the aforesaid order dated 28-8-63 but the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner dismissed his appeal on 1-3-66. Abdul Ghani filed a revision petition against tile order dated the 1st of March 1966 and the learned Settlement Commissioner free inspecting the spot and hearing the partied by his order dated the 5th of April 1968 accepted the appeal and set aside the order of tae Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the Additional Settlement Commissioner. He remanded the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for fresh decision with the following observation : "It would be most appropriate if the Deputy Settlement Commissioner decides the case afresh after taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the parties and after inspecting the spot."
2. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 5th of July 1969 held teat property bearing No. 24 was the back portion of property No. 43 which stood transferred to Abdul Ghani and that Mustafa Khan had no case whatsoever as No. 24 was a fictitious number. Mustafa Khan filed an appeal against the aforesaid order and the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 3rd of October 1472 acid that property bearing No. 24 did exist separately and was not a put of property No. 43 transferred to Abdul Ghani. Ho however remanded the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner with the direction that if Mustafa Khan was not found entitled to the transfer of property No. 24 then it could be disposed of a-.Cording to law.
3. Abdul Mughani an heir of Abdul Ghent who in the meantime had died filed a revision petition against the aforesaid order dated the 3rd of October 1972. The revision petition was transferred for disposal to the Additional Settlement Commissioner according to an amendment in the law and the learned Additional Settlement by his order dated the 8th of December 1973 upheld the finding to the effect that Property No. 24 was a separate property and not a part of property No. 43 with the direction to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to go into this question as well while deciding the case afresh.
4. The learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 2nd of August 1975 held that No. 24 was the rear portion of Property No. 43 and that the whole property stood transferred to Abdul Ghani the pre--decessor-in-interest of tile petitioner and that Mustafa Khan had no right to any portion of it as he had withdrawn his form with respect to property No. 24. Mustafa Khan challenged the aforesaid order dated the 2nd of August 1975 in R writ petition. On the application of Abdul Hamid and Shaukat Ali the two were impleaded as co-petitioners with Mustafa Khan but later on the name of Shaukat Ali was struck off on his application. The learned Single Judge in the High Court by his order dated the 13th of May 1978 held that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had passed the order after visiting the spot and that he was not going to enter into the factual inquiry and that since the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner did not suffer from any error of law there was no force in the writ petition, which was dismissed.
5. Mustsfa Khan has filed this petition for special leave to appeal against the order dated the 13th of May 1976 of the learned Single Judge.
6. After hearing Mr. Samad Mahmood learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Muhammad label learned Advocate for respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 who bad entered caveat, and going through the various orders we have come to the conclusion that there is no merit in leis petition. After checking a the original die we found that Mustafa Khan applied for the withdrawal of his L. H. Form which had boon accepted try tote Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had thereafter included this property in the auction list. It was however deleted from the auction list on the application of tire heirs of Abdul Ghani. In view of the above the petitioner had therefore no case whatsoever. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the statement of his client for the withdrawal of his L. H. Form was no statement is the eye of law as it was recorded by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner but he could not support this contention of his by any law or authority. Since the petitioner had withdrawn his form he had therefore no case whatsoever for the transfer of the property in his favour and this petition for special leave is therefore dismissed.
7. Petition dismissed