1969 PLP 942 (SCMR)

Ghazanfar Ali Gondal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (absent) Muhammad Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Majid Hussain, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 10th October 1967. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.‑The dispute in this case relates to a composite property situated in the Grain Market, Sheikhupura. The petitioner, who is a local, was in possession of a shop, a verandah in front of it and four godowns in the rear. The entire property was, however, transferred to the respondent Suleman, who was a non‑claimant but was in possession of the Chaubara on‑the top, by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in second revision on the 17th of April 1967. The petitioner did not move against this order before the Settlement Authorities but in the year 1966 filed a petition under Article 98 of the Constitution in the High Court. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan at Lahore dismissed this petition on the grounds firstly of laches, secondly because in his view the Settlement Commissioner was competent as a delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to treat the entire premises as one building, and thirdly because the petitioner had no locus stand! to oppose the transfer, as being a local he had merely a right to bid in an auction. This decision has been upheld by a Division Bench in a Letters Patent Appeal. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court and it is contended on his behalf that the High Court was wrong in holding that he had no locus stand! in the matter, as under the changed law a local is also entitled to the transfer of a house, no matter what its value. This may be so, but he does not explain as to why he waited for 5 years to challenge the order of the Settlement Commissioner transferring the property to the respondent Suleman who was actually his own employee. Indeed, as found by the learned Single Judge in the High Court, the petitioner never evinced any interest to resist the claim of the said respondent and admittedly never opposed the proceedings for the transfer of the premises. Obviously this was because under the law as it then stood in 1961 he was not entitled to the transfer thereof. It was only after the law had been changed that he decided to come in and try his luck by a petition under Article 98 of the Constitution. The petitioner, however, was clearly negligent, in not seeking this remedy earlier. He has no explanation, therefore, for the inordi nate delay that took place in moving the High Court under Article

98. His petition was, therefore, rightly dismissed on the ground of laches and on this short ground alone this ,petition must also fail. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Leave refused.