' QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.--- By this common judgment we intend to dispose of the above- mentioned two petitions for leave to appeal as both have arisen from one and the same judgment, dated 14-10-1998 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No,108/R of 1993.
2. The dispute between the parties relates to Property No,SE-IV25-S-23 situated in Nanak Street, Qilla Gujar Singh Lahore, which is a seven Marlas house consisting of 20 rooms. It is occupied by as many as 9 families. The dispute has a chequered history. At the outset Zaheer-ud Din and Fazal Muhammad Khan were in possession of 4 rooms each and she remaining rooms were in occupation of 7 other families A P.T.O. Was issued on 21-1-1960 in favour of the petitioner Zaheer- ud-Din which was challenged by the petitioner Fazal Muhammad Khan as a result whereof the entire property was transferred in latter's favour by order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 1-12-1961. The petitioner Zaheer-ud-Din filed an appeal against the said order which was accepted on 15-11-1962 by the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the transfer order in his favour was restored. Fazal Muhammad Khan filed a revision petition on which the matter was referred to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for inquiry on certain points and on receipt of the report on 30-6-1969 the revision petition was accepted on 6-11-1973 and the property was transferred in favour of Fazal Muhammad Khan, who had surrendered his entire rights in favour of the petitioner Abdul Latif Khan through a deed of association which was accepted by the Settlement Authorities and a P.T.O. Was issued on 23-4-1962. Zaheer-ud-Din petitioner filed a Writ Petition bearing No,417/R of 1973 which was accepted on 1-7-1976 by the Lahore High Court, Lahore and the case was remanded to the Notified Officer for decision afresh. The Notified Officer resolved the controversy in favour of Fazal Muhammad Khan vide order dated 15-4-1986, on which petitioner Zaheer-ud-Din filed another Writ Petition No, 108/R of 1993 which was disposed of on 14- 10-1998 in the following terms:-- ' "As a result of above discussion, the impugned order dated 15-4-1986 is declared illegal and without jurisdiction. After such declaration, remand of the case to Notified Officer for another round of litigation shall prolong unnecessary agonies of the parties and shall not serve the ends of justice.
In the light of aforesaid judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court, the disputed property is held to be divisible on account of its physical condition since 1947 and having peacefully accommodated both the claimant displaced persons. The petitioner is accordingly transferred four rooms already in his possession in the disputed property. He shall also be entitled to use staircase jointly with respondent No,8. There is, no other legal hurdles in transferring both the divided parts to the respective claimants in accordance with their possession. Further action for sharing of price by the two transferees and issuance of transfer documents shall be taken by the concerned functionaries. The petition is disposed of in the terms indicated above.
3. During pendency of the petitions Mr. Muhammad Younas Khokhar, Advocate was appointed as Local Commissioner vide order, dated 14-4-1999 with the direction to visit the spot to find out the actual possession of the parties over the disputed house. The Local Commissioner submitted his report which is worded thus:-- "Under the instructions and directions of this august Court, the undersigned went at the spot to ascertain the factum of possession of either party over the Property No,SE-4-25-S-3 situated in Nanak Street No,25, Qila Gujjar Singh, Lahore, under the Robkar dated 14-4-1999, reached at the spot on 15-4-1999, at 12-00 noon.
' At the spot Zaheer-ud-Din and Mr. Riffat Ali Khan son of Abdul Latif Khan, were already present waiting for the visit of the undersigned. As soon as the undersigned visited the spot, the undersigned asked Zaheer-ud-Din and Mr. Riffat Ali to show situation of the entire property, and they duly assisted the undersigned in calculation of the rooms and situation/ accommodation/possession. Site plan prepared at the spot clearly indicates the possession of the parties. However, the rooms in possession of Zaheer-ud-Din are shown in red lines. He was found in possession of 3 rooms at ground floor, while 2 rooms at the 2nd floor, and Abdul Latif Khan has been found in possession of remaining 15 rooms; in this view of the inspection, the entire property consists of 20 rooms.
' During the course of inspection Ali Haider LCW-1, Syed Tariq Hussain as LCW-2, Muhammad Aslam LCW-3 and Riffat Ali Khan son of Abdul as LCW-4, and Zaheer-ud-Din made statement as his own witness. All the said witnesses have confirmed the factum of possession of the parties at the spot.
' None of the parties raised any objection on the visit of the undersigned, rather supported and assisted the undersigned during the course of the spot inspection, and signed their statements in the presence of the witnesses and the undersigned."
4. It was contended by the learned, counsel for the petitioner Zaheer-ud-Din that the learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court had not only overlooked this aspect of the case that the question of divisibility of the house was determined by the Notified Officer in the light of the direction of the High Court contained in the remand order dated 1-7-1976 but also the recognized right of the petition to get the entire property in preference to Fazal Muhammad Khan being a direct claimant. It was also contended that transfer of 16 rooms in favour of the petitioner Abdul Latif was not fair or just.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Abdul Latif Khan, on the other hand, contended that his client being in possession of a major portion of the said house, which was not divisible since 1947 had a preferential right over Zaheer-ud Din who had occupied four rooms in the year 1956.
6. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties are hypertechnical whereas in view of protracted litigation between the parties the High Court has done complete justice and saved the parties from further agony and expense. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment particularly when the date of possession of Zaheer-ud Din is not clearly discernible from the material on record, both the contestents have been living in the same house peacefully since 1947 and the decision with regard to divisibility of the property is in line with the policy of accommodating as many displaced persons as possible in settlement cases.
7. Before parting with the judgment it is necessary to mention that according to the impugned judgment as well as the contents of Petition No,2002/L of 1998 and the site plan annexed therewith four out of twenty rooms are in possession of Zaheer-ud Din but according to the report of the Local Commissioner he is in possession of five rooms. The learned counsel for Zaheer-ud Din stated at the bar that he has filed objections against the report of the Local Commissioner. We do not want to provide another bone of contention to the parties by placing implicit reliance on the report of the Local Commissioner. Suffice it to say that the observations made in the impugned judgment that Zaheer-ud Din is in possession of four rooms and his own identical assertion are supported by the report of the Local Commissioner.
For the reasons stated above, both the petitions are dismissed and leave refused.