1974 PLP 173 (SCMR)

Date of hearing: 5th October 1973. ANWARUL HAQ, J.‑This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against an order made by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on the 1st of November 1972, whereby a constitution petition, filed by the petitioner in respect of certain residential evacuee properties, situate on Multan Road, Lahore, was dismissed. The property in dispute consists of two portions bearing separate property Nos. via., S. XV‑18‑S‑8/1 and S. XV‑18‑S‑8/2. The Settlement authorities have throughout treated these properties as two separate and independent units, and nave disposed them of accordingly. Unit No. 1 was transferred to respondent Mohammad Rafique through public auction on 28‑12‑1961. The petitioner filed a belated appeal before the Settlement Commissioner on 15‑6‑1968. In these proceedings, the petitioner did not implead Faqir Muhammad, who was the transferee of Unit No. 2, again through public auction held on 16‑10‑1960. The P. T. O. and P. T. D. were issued in due course in favour of Faqir Mohammad, and in 1966 he served a notice on the petitioner under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. Subsequently, he started ejectment proceedings against the petitioner and obtained an order of ejectment from the Rent Controller on 10‑2‑1968 which was upheld in first appeal by the appellate authority and by the High Court in second appeal by its order dated 2‑12‑1968. However, the petitioner never challenged the transfer of this unit in favour of Faqir Mohammad before any Settlement authority. The constitution petition was filed in the High Court in January 1969 to challenge the transfer of both these units in favour of Mohammad Rafique and Faqir Mohammad. The petitioner based his claim on the fact that he was a non‑claimant displaced person, an allottee of the property in dispute, and had riled an NCH torn for its transfer in the year 1959. He asserted that his application had remained undisposed of, although he did not come to know of the auction of the property in favour of the respondents until 1968. The petition was, however, rejected by the High Court on the ground that the petitioner had not admittedly agitated in the Settlement Courts against the transfer of one unit in favour of Faqir Mohammad although the latter had served upon the petitioner a notice of transfer and ejectment in 1966 and 1967 respectively. The learned Judge also observed that Faqir Mohammad had dated on 17‑1‑1969, but no application was made by the petitioner to implead Faqir Mohammad's legal representatives until 14‑9‑1971, that is, more than two years after his death. No request was made for condonation of delay, nor any justification was made out in this behalf. Besides, in the appeal two by the petitioner against the other transferee Mohammad Rafique, Faqir Mohammad was not impleaded at all, and it was only in the High Court teat Faqir Mohammad was impleisded as a respondent for the first tine. Considering all these facts, the learned Judge found teat the petitioner was not entitled to any relief against Faqir Mohammad, to whom that unit of the property had been transferred through auction in which the petitioner was in fact residing. As regards the transfer of the other unit in favour of Mohammad Rafique, the matter was disposed of by the High Court on the short ground that tile petitioner was not in possession of this unit, and he had filed an appeal after a lapse of 7 years. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been able to make out any justification whatsoever for our interference in the matter. He could give no explanation for the petitioner's failure to challenge in time the transfer of the property in favour of either of the respondents, It is clear that at least in 1966, the petitioner had received a notice from Faqir Mohammad regarding the transfer of this particular unit, but even then he did not challenge the same before any Settlement authority. The petitioner obviously could lay no claim to the other unit as he was not in possession of any portion thereof. In these circumstances, we have no option but to dismiss this petition. . Petition dismissed.