1982 PLP 69 (SCMR)

Arts. 199 & 185‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑Settlement authorities rejecting application of petitioner for transfer of property on ground of same having already stood transferred to some one else‑High Court dismissing writ petition for want of locus standi in matter‑Inter ference by Supreme Court, held, not justified.‑Locus standi]. Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. A. R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate, Ashiq Hussain Malik, Advocate and Muhammad Naazar Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 3 and

4. Date of hearing : 24th June, 1981. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 15‑5‑1975, of the Lahore High Court whereby a Cons titutional Petition, arising out of an Urban Settlement case, which was filed by the petitioner, was dismissed. A bungalow built on more than four acres was subject‑matter of transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) :", 1958. The same together with 23 kanals area was transferred to Syed Akhtar Ali from whom the petitioner claims to have purchased it. The "excess" area was made into different lots, one of which (No. 2) was reserved for Aligarh Old Boys Association ; which reservation, it is stated, lapsed in 1962. However in actual reality, the cancellation of this reservation is said to have taken place on 13‑7‑1977. Within about a month thereafter on 10‑8‑1977, one Rehmat Ali now deceased, made an application for the transfer of this lot (No. 2). The Deputy Settlement Commissioner purporting to act under the directions/observations of the High Court in another case transferred the same to Rehmat Ali on 8‑8‑1977. The petitioner made an application o 13‑10‑1977 to the transfer of the same lot (No. 2) under Scheme No. IX. I was rejected on the ground that the property stood already transferred t Rehmat Ali and was no more available. Respondent No. 4 is stated to be transferee from said Rehmat Ali. The petitioner challenged the aforementioned transfer of lot No. 2 before the Settlement Authorities and having failed to get relief, moved the High Court in its writ jurisdiction.. His petition having been dismissed in limine mainly on the ground that he had no locus standi in the matter, he has now sought leave to appeal. After hearing the learned counsel, we have no reason to differ with the approach of the learned Judge in the High Court. On the day when the petitioner allegedly filed application form under Settlement Scheme No. IX, the lot in dispute was not available for transfer to him because it had already been transferred to another person, namely, Rehmat Ali by the order, dated 8‑9‑1977. Argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner had filed the application for transfer on a regular form under Settlement Scheme No. IX and that Rehmat Ali bad applied on ordinary paper under the observations of the High Court, is of no help to the petitioner ; Firstly, no objection in this behalf was raised by the Department when considering the application of Rehmat Ali ; and secondly, this question was not raised in the High Court. The argument raised in the High Court regarding the nature of the observation made by the High Court in the other case under which Rehmat Ali obtained the benefit was also properly attended to by the learned Single Judge. We fined no justification for interference. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.