P L D 1964 (W (PLP)

(a) Their compensation book and the compensation book of the associates, if any. (b) An affidavit by each claimant to the effect that he has/has not utilised any portion of the amount of deferred payment from his compensation book. If any amount has been utilised, it may be specified therein. (c) A duly executed agreement showing the; share of each associating purchaser of the building.

3. On the 20th of May 1960, Mst. Aisha Khatoon petitioner made an application (Annexure `E') to the Chief Settlement Com missioner that the ex parte order of transfer in favour of Haji Karim Bakhsh & Sons be set aside, claiming therein that she was entitled to an opportunity "to negotiate for the transfer of the said building by private negotiations." The Chief Settlement Commissioner. Mr. Hasham Raza, by his order dated the 21st of May 1960, treated this application as a review petition and post poned its consideration to the 16th of June 1960. In the meantime, P. T. O. respecting the property in dispute was issued in favour of Haji Karim Bakhsh & Sons on the 28th of May 1960. The review matter, however, came up before Pir Ahsan‑ud‑Din, Chief Settlement Commissioner, on the 14th of September 1960, who, after hearing the counsel for Mst. Aisha Khatoon petitioner and Ch. Abdul Qayyum petitioner, who had also apparently made his appearance before the Chief Settlement Commissioner to urge his claim to the transfer of the building on the score of his being a refugee from Jammu & Kashmir State, rejected the respective claims of the petitioners. He characterised the argument of the counsel for Mst. Aisha Khatoon that she was entitled to the trans fer of the building because she was a claimant and had filed a CH form, as unsound "because a big mansion is not a house and is not subject to transfer on CH form but is liable to special treat ment in accordance with law." He further observed in his order as follows:‑ "The method of disposal of a big mansion is either through unrestricted auction or through private negotiation for which offer is not less than 50 years annual rental value of the build ing. The question whether Mst. Aisha Khatoon put in CH form is, therefore, immaterial so far as the disposal of the property is concerned." As regards the claim of Ch. Abdul Qayyum petitioner, the Chief Settlement Commissioner observed: "On behalf of Mr. Abdul Qayyum it was urged that he is a Kashmiri refugee and has a better claim than Mst. Aisha Khatoon. But it was conceded by the learned counsel for Mr. Abdul Qayyum that Haji Karim Bakhsh, who was a displaced person, had established two shops, one at Calcutta and the other at Darjeeling in India, and had permanently settled down in West Bengal in 1920 and obviously had a still better claim. The claim of Kashmiri refugee for temporary settlement only is obviously inferior to the claim of a displaced person like Messrs Haji Karim Bakhsh & Sons. Having considered all aspects of the case, I feel fully satis fied that the premises were rightly transferred by my predecessor in favour of Messrs Haji Karim Bakhsh & Sons in accordance with law, and I do not see any reason to interfere. The review petition is, therefore; rejected.

4. One of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners in both the cases was that the transfer of big mansions could be made only by unrestricted public auction according to Settlement Scheme No. III notified in pursuance of section 16, clause (b), of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. 1958, read with paragraph 16 of the Schedule to that Act, and not by private sale. These petitions along with some other cases (L. P. A. No. 311 of 1961, etc.) were referred to a Full Bench of this High Court for determination of the above‑mentioned question of law. The Full Bench, by its order dated the 19th of December 1962, held that section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, is not a bar against the powers of the Central Government to give approval to modes of transfer other than those provided in the Schedule to the Act. It was further observed by their Lordships in their majority Judgment in M. M. Rashid v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and another (P L D 1963 Lah, 227) setting‑forth the reasons for the order dated the 19th of December 1962 that the two clauses of section 10 of the Act, as it stood before the 13th of January 1962. mean that while the Chief Settlement Commissioner has to conform to the Schedule: regarding any transfer of any kind of property mentioned in the Schedule, he can act in any manner other than that mentioned in the Schedule, if the Central Government direct or allow him to do so or approve of his action in that behalf either before it is done or afterwards. This means that not only can a big mansion be sold by private negotiation but that the approval of the Central Government can precede as well as succeed such a transfer. It is true that by the 7th of May 1960 no approval of the transfer of the building by negotiation in favour of respondent No. 2 had been accorded, but on the 30th of May 1960 the Central Govern ment addressed the following letter to the Chief Settlement Com missioner (Annexure `H'):‑ "I am directed to say that the Central Government has been pleased to decide under clause (b) of section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, that a big mansion may be transferred by negotiation to any person who offers at least fifty years gross annual rent of such mansion for 1946." It may be mentioned that this letter was issued by S. Hashim Raza as Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Rehabi litation, to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Pakistan, who was S. Hashim Raza himself. Now, the contention of the petitioners is that although by the aforesaid order the Central Government approved of the mode of transfer by negotiation, the transfer in favour of respondent No. 2 remained unaffected by this letter of approval as the order dated the 7th of May 1960 had been passed before the approval arrived, and this order could not have, on the 30th of May 1960, retrospectively approved of a transfer made on the 7th of May 1960. Needless to point out, this contention stands repelled by the Full Bench judgment according to which, as already indicated, the approval could precede as well as succeed the trans fer by private negotiation.

5. After the learned counsel for the parties had concluded their arguments in the two cases which ate the subject‑matter of this judgment; a copy of an order of the Supreme Court, dated tire 11th of April 1963, was produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the connected petition (Writ Petition No. 832‑R of 1961) in support of his contention that the approval of the Central Government to the transfer of big mansions by negotiation had to precede the actual transfer by negotiation and could not be given subsequent to the transfer. By this order, which arose out of an application for review (Civil Review Petition No. 7 of 1963) of a previous order of the Supreme Court rejecting a petition for special leave to appeal, their Lordships disposed of the contention raised before them by the learned counsel appearing before them in the following words:‑ "His reliance on the Central Government's letter of the 30th May 1960 (not a notification) allowing the transfer of big mansions by negotiation, subject to a certain condition, failed at the earlier hearing because the condition was not satisfied, by the price offered, in relation to the rental value of the property, which was stated to be Rs. 1,962.56. In this petition, he urges that this figure was incorrectly stated during the hearing in the High Court, and his clients did not challenge it, as it came from the Settlement Authority, and moreover they were defending their rights on a different ground. The figure now ascertained to be correct is only Rs. 1,520 p.m., and if this be accepted, the condition is satisfied. But the conten tion fails on a different ground, namely, that if Mr. Hashim Raza's order accepting the bid of Rs. 10 lakhs on the 14th November 1959 be regarded as a transfer by negotiation, then, at the time when it was made, the method was not one which had the general approval of the Central Government, and being outside the other modes of transfer specified in section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, it could not effect a legal disposition." As in this order the view apparently has been taken that the vali dity of a transfer by negotiation is dependant upon the approval of such methods of transfer having been accorded before hand, I gave the learned counsel in all the connected petitions an oppor tunity to address me as to the effect of this observation of their Lordships as regards the decision of their petitions. After hearing their respective arguments 1 have come to the conclusion that the contention based upon the aforesaid observation of their Lord ships of the Supreme Court, so far as the present petitions are concerned, can be disposed of on the short ground that in this judgment I cannot proceed on a basis different from the one on which the above‑mentioned Full Bench judgment of this High Court has proceeded, because that Full Bench judgment arose out, of a reference made in the present petitions as also in some other connected petitions and Letters Patent Appeals. The judgment of the Full Bench, for all practical purposes, has to be considered as a part of this judgment, and I cannot take a view different from the one expressed therein while sitting in Single Bench. It must, therefore, be held that the fact that the approval to the method of transfer by negotiation had been received by the Settlement Authorities later than the actual transfer order had been made, would not invalidate the transfer, especially in view of the fact C that on an application for review of the aforesaid order of transfer. Pir Ahsan‑ud‑Din, Chief Settlement Commissioner, by his order dated the 14th of September 1960, ratified the transfer.

6. It was further urged that the negotiation contemplated an effort by the Settlement Authorities to get the best price for the property and did not empower the Settlement Authorities to pick out a person as a purchaser and ignore other parties who might also be interested in the transfer of the property on the score of their claims as allottees, claimants, etc. Another contention raised was that in any case the building in question had to be formally declared as a big mansion before it could be made the subject- matter of disposal by private negotiation.

7. I am not inclined to attach any importance to the last contention as it was not taken up in the grounds of petitions. On the other hand, both the petitioners have, in their respective peti tions, proceeded on the assumption that the property in question was a big mansion. Besides, it is obvious from the petitions themselves that the application on CH form, dated the 15th of July 1959, of Mst. Aisha Khatoon had been returned to her with the endorsement that no CH forms were invited in respect of big mansions. This was, in effect, a declaration to the effect that the property in question was being treated as a big mansion. In the subsequent application of Mst. Aisha Khatoon, the character of the building as a big mansion was not at all questioned.

8. Nor do I see any force in the contention of the petitioners' counsel that it was necessary for the Settlement Authorities to publicise that the property was to be sold by private negotiation and that in deciding to transfer the building to respondent No. 2 they had committed any illegality, in so far as the claims of the petitioners to buy the property by private negotiation had bee ignored. The directive dated the 30th of May 1960 does no enjoin on the Chief Settlement Commissioner to enter into negotiation with the public at large and even with persons who ma have an interest in the property on account of their being its allottees or occupants. The Chief Settlement Commissioner com mits no wrong if in selling the property by private negotiation he ensures the getting of a price for it equal to its fifty years' gross annual rent for 1946. It is not contended in the present cases that the building had been ordered to be transferred to respondent No. 2 for less than its fifty years' gross annual rent. On the other hand, it is contended that the petitioners would have paid more than fifty years' gross annual rental value of the property and the property should not have been transferred to respondent No. 2 merely because he offered fifty years' gross annual rental value.

9. In the circumstances of the cases, I see no force in these petitions and dismiss them with costs. S. Q, Petition dismissed.