1976 PLP 319 (SCMR)

SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑‑The dispute between the parties is over a building site. The petitioner claims that he has been in possession of the site since the year 1947, and that on the 21st of September, 1960, he applied for its transfer under para. 13 of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. His application having been lost, he was advised to apply again, and this he did on the 27th of January, 1968. In his application dated the‑ 27th of January, 196:, however, the petitioner made no mention of his alleged earlier application dated the 21st of September, 1960. There is no dispute, however, that respondent No. 1 applied for reservation of the site on the 30th of March 196 1, and it was ultimately reserved for him on the 30th of May 1962, and a Provisional Transfer Order was issued to him on the 20th of February 1965. The respondent duly paid the price of the site. It appears that in May 1966, the respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner. In his written statement filed on October 1966 the petitioner stated that he had raised some construc tion over the site about four years ago. In other words in May 1902 when the site was reserved for the respondent there was no such construc tion on it. On the 3rd of July 1968, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner rejected the said application of the petitioner dated the 27th of January 1968, on the ground that the site was not available for transfer as it had already been transferred to the respondent. Thereafter the petitioner led an appeal from the said orders dated the 30th of March 1962, The reserving the site for the respondent, and 3rd of July 1968, i,e. rejecting the petitioner': application dated the 27th of January .1968, and the appeal was dismissed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner in the 13th of March 1969, as barred by limitation. There was a revision application by the petitioner and the appeal was remanded. The same Additional Settlement Commissioner, however, by his order dated the 4th of June 1970, dismissed the appeal once again and held that the petition had not filed any application for the site prior to the 27th of January 1968. The petitioner again filed a revision but it was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner on the 5th of May 1971. the Settlement Commissioner concurred in the findings of the Additional Settlement Com missioner. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court and this, too, was dismissed. The learned Single Judge who dismissed the petition refused to interference with, the concurrent findings of fact end held that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge tire transfer in favour of the respondent. On behalf of the petitioner, contentions have been raised which arc based upon his assertion that he had put up pucca construction on the site prior the 30th of July 1962, i. e. the date when the site was reserved for the respondent. As may have been noticed already, this assertion has not been proved. The petitioner having failed to prove that be had a legally vested interest in the site, it has oven rightly found that he had no locus standi to challenge the transfer in favour of the respondent even if it be assumed that such transfer was not legal. The petitioner was never an allottee of the site. Before the learned Single Judge contentions regarding the aforesaid contention findings if the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner, and the legality of the transfer in favour of the respondent were alone rained. In our opinion these contentions have been rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge. It may be mentioned that none of the two cases cited in support of the contentions has any application to the facts of the present case. The cases cued were Altaf Hussain v. Chief' Settlement Commissioner (P L D1965 S C 68) and Allah Bakhsh v. Nizam Din (1975 S C M R 182). The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.