1979 PLP 389 (SCMR)

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 16‑5‑1978 of a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 428/R of 1976, dismissing the petitioner's writ petition in limine. The petitioners were in occupation of two shops and a residential portion of the property in dispute as tenants of the Evacuee Trust Board. In 1948 the Custodian had allotted a part of this property to Haji Abdul Karim and on commencement of the Settlement Operations his widow and Abdul Hameed (respondents 3 and 4 before us) applied for transfer of the property on form C. H. as the property was situated in a predominantly residential area, which was transferred to them by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 24‑11‑1959, followed by a provisional transfer order dated 6‑11‑1960. The entire price was thereafter paid but owing to departmental inaction the P. T. D. could not be issued. Petitioners 1 and 2 preferred an appeal and the Additional Settlement Commissioner set aside the order of transfer made by the Deputy Settlement Commis sioner on the ground that the property being evacuee trust property did not form part of the compensation pool, hence it could not be transferred by the Settlement Authorities. The revision petition having failed, respondents 3 and 4 preferred Writ Petition No. 4/R of 1964) which was accepted on 1‑12‑1966 on the ground that the question whether the property was a trust property was competence of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, to whom the case was remanded for determination. During the pendency of the matter before the Chief Settlement Commis sioner, the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975(hereinafter called the "Act") was enacted and by virtue of its section 8 the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Board was empowered to decide if any evacuee property was attached to the Trust. Consequently, the Chief Settlement Commissioner referred the case to the said Chairman. On 8‑4‑1974 he declared the property to be evacuee trust property. He did not validate the transfer under section 10 because no P. T. D. had been issued prior to the stipulated date therein. Against this respondents 3 and 4 moved a Miscellaneous Application before the Federal Government which came up for disposal before respondent No. 1, who validated the transfer in favour of respondents 3 and 4 in terms of section 10 of the Act of 1975 by his order dated 17‑3‑1976. This order was challenged by the petitioners in writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Before the learned Judge in the High Court exception was taken to the order of respondent No. 1 on the grounds; (a) that respondent No. 1 had not been delegated power of the Federal Government under section 17; (b) that the application on which the order had been passed was moved beyond the stipulated period of fifteen days, and (c) that the case of respondents 3 and 4 was not covered by section 10 of the Act of 1975, as validation could only be made where a P. T. D. had been issued before June 1958. The High Court found it unnecessary to go into these points in view of an objection taken to the locus standi of the petitioners to maintain a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution against the order validating the transfer in favour of the respondents. For the petitioners it was argued that they were tenants of the Evacuee Trust Board and as such were aggrieved persons under Article 199(1) of the Constitution. It was submitted on the basis of a comparative chart that they were enjoying better prospectus as tenants of the Evacuee Trust Property Board than they would be enjoying if the property continued to remain transferred to respondents 3 and 4 when the relations, inter se between them and the said respondents would be governed by the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Reliance was placed on Fazal Din v. Lahore Improvement Trust (P L D 1969 S C 223 ), Arsalla Khan Bashir Ahmad Blour (P L D 1976 S C 581) and S. M. Ilyas & Sons Ltd. v. Monopoly Control Authority, Islamabad (P L D 1976 Lah. 834), in support of the petitioner's stand that their Writ Petition was maintainable in the High Court. The learned Judge distinguished these judgments and held that "the petitioners" chances of having better prospects as tenants under the Trust than as under respondents Nos. 3 and 4 can, by no stretch of imagination, be equated with their having right in the property". Since the petitioners had been unable to show any prospect of acquiring the property in the event of the impugned order being declared unlawful, the High Court dismissed the petition in limine. In the petition for leave to appeal the petitioners have reiterated the legal points as agitated by them before the High Court, but at the hearing they have confined to the grounds of locus standi and the validation of transfers under section 10 of the Act. We find that the learned Judge in the High Court has in a well reasoned order and after discussing the judgments for and against on the point of the petitioner's locus standi held that the writ petition was not maintainable at their instance and we have not been persuaded to take a different view. Clearly, it is a sine qua non for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 that the petitioner should be an aggrieved person. He must, therefore, establish a direct or indirect injury to himself and substantial interest in the subject matter of the proceedings. The stand of the petitioners throughout has been that they were tenants paying rent to the Evacuee Trust Boar and never claimed the transfer of the property and indeed in law they were not so entitled. Their writ petition was, therefore, rightly dismissed by the High Court and not ground for interference exists. This petition accordingly fails and is dismissed hereby. Petition dismissed.