P L D 1967 Lahore 639 (PLP)

Abdul Majid Khan for Respondent No.

5. Dates of hearing : 2nd and 3rd November 1966. The petitioners, Abdul Khaliq and Ghulam Muhammad, claim to be Jammu and Kashmir refugees. Petitioner No. 1 (Abdul Khaliq) is stated to have filed form KNCH with respect to two rooms out of property bearing No. Q/464, Mohalla Niarian, Rawalpindi City. Similarly, the other Jammu and Kashmir refugee, Abdur Rehman (respondent No. 5) filed form KNCH desiring transfer of two rooms in his possession. The rest of the premises being in possession of one Bashir Ahmad claimant were claimed by him against his CH form. This Bashir Ahmad, how ever, is not a party to the present proceedings and we are not concerned with his portion. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 30th of December 1959 gave the entire house to the said Bashir Ahmad. Neither of the petitioners moved against this transfer order and it was only Abdur Rahman (Respondent No. 5) who preferred an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner but remained unsuccessful. However, at the revisional stage he succeeded and the two rooms in his possession were ordered to be given to him Two cross revision petitions, one by the aforesaid Bashir Ahmad, and the other by Abdur Rahman, came up for hearing before the Settlement Commissioner exercising powers of the Chief Settlement Commis sioner, who, while rejecting both the revision petitions, ordered that the property should be divided vertically according to physical possession of the aforesaid two contestants and the rest of the area in occupation of other persons should be put to auction. 1t is at this stage that Abdul Khaliq petitioner No. 1 again appeared on the scene when he finding that Abdur Rahman and Bashir Ahmad had filed review petitions, also put in a review petition against the order of transfer of his portion by public auction, before the Settlement Commissioner exercising powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner. All the three review petitions were rejected on the 10th of August 1961. Meanwhile on Abdul Khaliq petitioner's application, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner entertained his duplicate KNCH form without having adverted to the orders passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner placing his portion in, the auction pool and the legality of this order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner is doubtful. It may also be added at this stage that according to the report of the Department, the earlier KNCH form filed by Abdul Khaliq no doubt does find mention in the CSC II register but it is shown to have been rejected and appears not have been pressed thereafter. There is an application on the record, Annex R‑1 to the writ petition, sent along with the report by the Department, wherein the petitioners have admitted that the KNCH form filed by Abdul Khaliq had been rejected and they would like to remain under protection of Bashir Ahmad and the portion in their occupation should not be given to Abdur Rahman (respon dent No. 5) in any case. This application was made by them before the Additional Settlement Commissioner when Abdur Rahman's appeal was pending against Basbir Ahmad and was ordered to be placid on the record as both of them were not parties to that appeal.

2. To revert to the question of transfer of the portion in occupation of the petitioners, we find that after the rejection of he review petition of petitioner No. 1 both of them kept silent and satisfied. Ultimately when Abdur Rahman moved the Chief Settlement Commissioner for transfer of the portion in possession of the petitioners, to him, by private negotiation in preference to public auction, the petitioners appear to have woke up from their slumber of forgetfulness. The Chief Settlement Commissioner allowed the prayer of Abdur Rahman and it is against this order of transfer of petitioners' portion by private negotiation to Abdur S. Rahman that the petitioners have approached this Court.

3. From the chequered history of the case it will be seen that the petitioners have not been vigilant enough. All that they now want is that the original order of the Settlement Commis sioner exercising powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner to put the property to unrestricted public auction be restored and the order transferring the portion by private negotiation in favour of respondent No. 5 be quashed, the same having been passed with out lawful authority in review, after the 13th of January 1962, when such powers no longer vested in the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Be that as it may, the question to be considered in the present proceedings is whether the petitioners have any locus standi to challenge the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred me to a decision of the Karachi Bench, Muhammad Amin v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Karachi and others (P L 1) 1966 Kar. 91), in which the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Muhammad Ismail v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner (Civil Appeal No. K‑20 of 1963, decided on the 21st of November 1963 (unreported)) has been considered and distinguished. I, however, find that the controversy has been set at rest by the two subsequent pronouncements of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, as would appear from the paragraph that follows. In Abdul Hamid Khan v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and others (P L D 1966 S C 719) their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while dealing with the question of disposal of excess area of a bungalow, for which the claim of the appellant before their Lordships bad been rejected and for which area he had a desire to bid in the auction, have held as under:‑ "It may be added that the transfer of `excess area' in favour of respondent No. 3 was also not open to correction by the High Court, because the matter lay in the discretion of the Settlement authorities and no illegality had been committed it the exercise of that discretion. Lastly as the entitlement of the appellant had been rejected by the Settlement Commissioner b order dated the 12th September 1961, he no longer had the locus standi to object to the transfer of the `excess area' i favour of the respondent No. 3." Abdul Hamid Khan feeling aggrieved by the order above lodged review petition (being Civil Review Petition No. 22 of 1966 decided on the 17th of June 1966, unreported) before the Supreme Court and agitated that under certain instructions of the Chief Settlement commissioner, excess area beyond a prescribed Minimum was to be sold by auction and because he had been living in an outhouse on the estate for many years, he wished to bid at such an auction. Repelling the contention, their Lordships rent made the following observations: "The mere desire to bid for a property at an auction does not carry a vested right to bring such property to auction. It is difficult to suppose that for property situated in a very central part of Lahore civil lines, where prices rule very high, a person who has been content to occupy an outhouse on the property for many years can have the means, and therefore a bona fide desire, to bid at an auction. It may be safely inferred that the effort is being made on behalf of another or others. The point of locus standi thus gains added weight. It is clear that the petitioner, whose case for transfer of the whole or part of the property, in Settlement, has been finally rejected, has no locus standi to assert any rights in respect thereof." This would show that potential bidders at best have a right which they enjoy in common with every other citizen and it gives them no special right to resist the transfer to another person who is otherwise entitled to such transfer.

5. Furthermore, petitioner No. 1 having been indolent throughout can have no genuine cause for grievance and petitioner No. 2 being a non‑applicant has no case either. The writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.