P L D 1965 (W (PLP)

ANWARUL HAQ, J.‑This appeal is directed against an order passed by Masud Ahmad, J., on the 18th of June 1963, dismissing the appellant's writ petition concerning house No. 83‑C, Model Town, Lahore. The house was in possession of the respondent, Major Bashir Ahmad, since 27th of November 1947, as an allottee and was transferred to him by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on the 30th of November 1959. A complaint was, however, made against Major Bashir Ahmad to the effect that he was a local and accordingly the. Additional Settlement Commissioner cancelled the transfer of the house in favour of the respondent. The respondent thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court as well as a revision petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The writ petition was dismissed by Mr. Justice Kaikaus on the 25th of May 1960 to enable the Chief Settlement Commissioner to decide the revision petition. The Chief Settlement Commissioner accepted the respondent's revision petition by his order dated the 25th of March .1961 and restored the transfer of the house in favour of the respondent. However, in the meantime the house had been placed in the earmarking list, and in the drawing of lots the appellant Masitullah was declared successful. The effect of the revisional order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner was that the transfer in‑favour of Masitullah stood cancelled. It was for this reason that Masitullah invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

2. The main contention which has throughout been urged against the respondent' is that he is a local and therefore not entitled to the transfer of this house which has an evaluation price of Rs. 38,

400. The respondent, however, claimed the status of a displaced person on the ground that before Independence he was serving in the Army at Kamptee (Nagpur) and had to leave that place due to Partition of the country. This contention was accepted due the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner. The learned Single Judge, who dealt with Masitullah's writ petition, relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Mahboob' Elahi v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner Pakistan, Lahore (P L D 1963 Lah. 214); in which it was held that a person who, though an original resident of a place which on Partition of British India fell to the share of Pakistan, was residing at the time of that Partition at a place which fell to the share of India and had no immediate desire of leaving the place but had not made it his permanent abode would be a "displaced person" for the purpose of the Act. It appeared to Masud Ahmad, J., that in view of this decision the respondent Major Bashir Ahmad, had to be treated as a displaced person, and accordingly he dismissed the appellant's writ petition.

3. It is contended before us by Mr. Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, the learned counsel for the appellant, that the true meaning of the term "displaced person" as used in the Displaced Persons (Compensation and' Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has been authoritatively explained by a Full Bench of this Court in Syed Haider Shah v. Mukhtar Hussain Shah and others (PL D 1963 Lah. 549), in which it has been clearly brought out that "the definition of the term itself excludes a person who had a temporary residence in that part of British India which now forms part of India from qualifying as a displaced person. Such a person cannot be said to have left or been displaced from his place of residence because of the setting up of the two Dominions of Pakistan and India, or on account of civil disturbances or the fear of such disturbances in any area now forming part of or occupied by India."

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in view of this interpretation the respondent cannot be regarded as a displaced person and, therefore, the transfer to him of a house valued at more than Rs. 10,000 is clearly without lawful authority.

5. On behalf of the contesting respondent, Dr. Javaid Iqbal has raised the following preliminary objections to the maintainability of the appellant's petition and the appeal:‑ (i) That the Settlement Scheme No. V as well as paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the Act make it clear that in order to qualify for participation in the earmarking scheme, the value of the claim held by the applicant should at least be 50 percent. of the value of the house, but in the present case the house is valued at Rs. 3,400 and the appellant's claim is only Rs. 8,300, with the result that he was not at all legally entitled to apply for this house, and accordingly he has no locus standi against the respondent; (ii) that the appellant and his counsel did not appear before the learned Single Judge with the result that the writ petition was decided ex parte in the absence of the appellant, and he should not now be heard in this appeal; (iii) that a permanent deed has already been issued to the respondent on the 27th of August 1963 and he has spent about Rs. 24,000 on the repairs and renovation of the house, in addition to paying the full price to the Settlement Depart ment at the rate of 15 percent; the evaluation price: and (iv) that in any case the Letters Patent Appeal does not lie for the reason that the learned Judge in Chambers was not exercising original civil jurisdiction conferred by clause 9 of the Letters Patent.

6. We consider that it is not necessary for us to examine all the preliminary objections raised by Dr. Javaid Iqbal, for the reason that we agree with him that the appellant Masitullah has no locus standi to agitate in this matter. It is clear that under paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the Act Masitullah could apply for this house under the earmarking scheme only if the value of his verified claim was at least 50 percent. of the evaluation price of the house, but his claim falls far short of this amount. The appellant was, therefore, not legally entitled to the transfer of this house and the mere fact that his application in Form 'E' was accepted by the Department, does not create any entitlement in his favour, as no power has been given to the Chief Settlement commissioner or his subordinates to deviate from the provisions of the Schedule to the Act.

7. It was contended by Mr. Ijaz Hussain Batalvi that as laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sh. Rehmatullah v. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner centre 'A' Karachi and others (P L D 1963 S C 633), the appellant as a claimant had a vested right in property forming part of the compensation pool and, therefore, he was not only entitled to its transfer, but also had a locus standi to agitate against the illegal transfer of this property to a local. It seems to us that of the Supreme Court in Rehmatullah's case has no application to the facts before us. In that case their Lordships were considering the question whether upon‑claimant could claim a vested right in evacuee property which had once been included in the compensation pool, whereas in the instant case, according to the provisions of the Act itself, the appellant before us is not entitled to claim the property in dispute under the earmarking scheme. In these circumstances, it can hardly be urged that he has a vested right in this property. It has been repeatedly held by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court that if a petitioner has no locus standi in the matter, the Court is under no obligation, at his instance, to examine the entitlement of the respondent. We may in this behalf mention The Tariq Transport Company, Lahore v. The Sargodha‑Bhera Bus Service, Sargodha and others (P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 437), Zebun Nisa Kureshy v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Pakistan and another (P L D 1962 Pesh. 186) and Mumtaz Sultana v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore E‑Division, Lahore and another (P L D 1964 Lah. 388). And more recently, in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 172 of 1964 (Imdad Ali Malik v. The Settlement Commissioner etc.), decided by the Supreme Court on the 29th of June 1964 the following observations, which have a directing bearing on the issue before us, were made by his Lordship the Chief Justice who delivered the judgment of the Court. "We declined to hear Mr. Muhammad Bakhsh Meer, who appeared for the petitioner, when he attempted to argue that the house could not in law, go to the informer. It is clear that the petitioner has no vested right in the house, and that he has otherwise no locus standi, in these proceedings, to ques tion the disposal of the house by the Settlement Authorities."

8. For the reasons given above we are of the view that the appellant Masitullah has no locus standi in the matter of the transfer of the house in dispute. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to examine whether the house has been rightly transferred to the respondent, Major Bashir Ahmad. The result is that the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. S. A. H. Appeal dismissed.