1976 PLP 61 (SCMR)

HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J‑The dispute in this case relates to evacuee property No. 41/A, situated at Mirpur Sakro, District Thatta. The Settlement & Rehabilitation Commissioner transferred this property in favour of the respondent No. 4 on the 28th October 1974. This order seas challenged by the petitioner by a writ petition in the Sind & Baluchistan High Court. It appears that the premises in dispute, which is a shop, was transferred to the present petitioner on his N. C. S. form in the year 1960 at the evaluation price of Rs. 13,

228. Subsequently, this price was reduced to Rs.8,798.15 and an appendix was issued for this amount on :he 7th September 1968, but the petitioner failed to pay even this amount. Notices were accordingly issued and the property was ultimately resumed. The transfer order issued in favour of the petitioner was also cancelled on the 27th November 1968. The property was then, on intimation to the parties, put up to auction on the 24th May 1969, and was sold to the respondent No. 4 for Rs. 2,

500. The petitioner, however, made a representation against this auction and the same was cancelled and another open auction was ordered on the 30th December 1969. This order was challenged by the respondent No. 4 in revision and the case was remanded to the Additional Settlement Commissioner, who treated it as an appeal and, on the 25th August 1972, directed a fresh auction of the property under intimation to the parties. The respondent No. 4 again challenged this order in revision. The same was accepted by the Settlement Commissioner and the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated the 25th August.1972, arias set aside. This was the order that was challenged by the petitioner tat the High Court. The High Court hays, however, dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner; at no stage, had paid any part of the evaluation price car the public dues. On tire other hand, the respondent No. 4 had paid the auction price, which bad been finally assessed at Rs. 4,399 and had obtained a P. T.D. for the said shop. The complaint of the petitioner in the high Court was that the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 28th October 1971, was an exparte order and was, therefore, bad in law. The High Court took the view that since the petitioner had not challenged the order cancelling his own P. T. O. and had actually filed an application before the Additional Settlement Commissioner on the 1tith April 1972, stating that he was not interested ire the property in question, the non‑service of notice to the petitioner was, trot a sufficient ground for setting aside the order of the Additional Settle ment Commissioner. The latter, it appears, had also made every effort to serve the petitioner, but service could not be effected because he was not to be found in hip last known address. The petitioner, in any event, having no vested right in the property after he had submitted to the cancellation of the P, T. O. issued in has favour, could not make a grievance on this account. Learned counsel appearing in support of the petition contends that apart from the fact that the order of the 28th October 1972, was an ex parte order without notice to his client, the transfer of the property by negotia tion to respondent No. 4 was also illegal, because, there was no or4et for such transfer by negotiation. We are inclined to agree with the High Court that the petitioner had tin locus standi to challenge the said order. The mere right to bid at an auction did not vest him with a right to maintain the writ petition in the High Court, has been held by this Court in the cases of Muhammad Sharif v. Sharifuddin and others (1972 S C M R 63), Babu Pervez Qureshi v. Settlement Commissioner and others (1974 S C M R 337) and A. Hamid Khan v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore. (Civil Review Petition No. 22 of 1966). Apart from ibis, since he had already intimated to the authorities concerned that he was no longer interested in the property, he cannot now be allowed to complain of the transfer of the property by negotiation. The present rake face is merely an afterthought. In the circumstances, we see no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused.