P L D 1989 Peshawar 250 (PLP)

7. On the contrary the plea of the respondents Nos.3 to 5 was that they had already paid in cash and in the shape of compensation books more than the price which was offered by them in auction proceedings. The respondents Nos.3 to 5 filed Writ Petition No.78 of 1976 in this Court wherein on 27‑8‑1976 an interim status quo order was made. In the said writ petition on 19‑12‑1979 a further interim order was made which has also been reproduced in full at pages 10 and 11 of the impugned judgment but for the sake of convenience it would be profitable to reproduce the same as under:‑ "The Department has accepted that a sum of Rs.5,46,987/70 has been received by them and adjusted on the basis or Compensation Books. They have also admitted the receipt of Rs.1,00,000 as cash. Apart from that they admit that CBs of Rs.6,32,916 have been verified but the adjustment has not been made in view of the writ petition. In respect of Compensation Books of Rs.5,74,724 it is stated that Compensation Books relating to this amount though verified, the amount thereof has not been adjusted as such a course would have not been contrary to the instructions contained in letter of 27‑3‑1964. (2) To resolve the controversy and to reduce the limit of time for final disposal of the matter, the learned counsel has shown his readiness to pay in cash a sum of Rs.2,70,113 about which the Department is not sure. This amount should be paid within a period of thirty days by the petitioners. After the receipt of this amount the Settlement Commissioner notwithstanding any interim status quo order of this Court may make a tentative decision whether the transfer of the property in favour of the petitioners is to be finalized by issuance of transfer order. If he comes to the decision that the petitioners are entitled to the transfer order then the present writ petition would become infructuous. If the tentative decision is to the contrary then the writ petition shall proceed. The Settlement Commissioner should communicate the tentative decision to this Court within three months of the date of the deposit of the amount of Rs.2,70,113 by the petitioners if done within thirty days. (3) As regards the uncertainty about Rs.5,74,724, the Settlement Commissioner should give an opportunity to the petitioners to explain the some and if he is satisfied about the genuineness of the Compensation Books then the cash deposited by the petitioners shall be refunded to them and the amount of the Compensation Books adjusted against the transfer price. (4) A copy of this order should be handed over to the petitioners, to the counsel for the Department and to the counsel for newly‑added respondents. One copy of the order should be sent directly to the Settlement Commissioner. (5) The replies of the Settlement Commissioner and the Chief Settlement Commissioner have been received and placed on record." Pursuant to the aforesaid directions given by this Court the respondents Nos.3 to 5 deposited in cash on 9‑11‑1980 an amount of Rs.2,70,113 towards the payment of auction price. Thereafter the Settlement Commissioner (Industries) proceeded to make a tentative decision whether or not the transfer of the property in favour of the bidders could be finalized by issuance of transfer documents as was directed by this Court aforesaid interim order. He finally made an order on 12‑4‑1980 whereby he refused to set aside the auction proceedings concluded in the year 1963 with the approval of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. With regard to the payment of auction price by the respondents Nos.3 to 5 he found the position as under: -- (1) Amount paid in cash in 1963 and 1966. Rs. 28,250.00 adjusted. (2) Amount of claim compensation books verified before the cancellation proceedings. Rs.5,29,737.70 adjusted. (3) Cash payment in the form of Bank Draft received after the Cancellation proceedings. Rs.1,00,000.00 unadjusted. (4) Amount of claim compensation books verified before cancellation proceedings but unadjusted. Rs.54,316.00 unadjusted. (5) Amount verified during the pendency of the writ petition with the original record. Rs.5,78,600.00 unadjusted. _______________ Total:‑ Rs. 12,80,903.70 _______________ The respondents Nos.3 to 5 had also deposited, in obedience to the aforesaid order of this Court made in Writ Petition N o.78 of 1976 an amount of Rs.2,70,

113. He also came to the conclusion that the entire transfer price had been paid by the petitioners (respondents Nos.3 to 5 herein) and thus the resumption of the property would be highly arbitrary.

8. It shall thus be seen that the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 had paid in cash and in the shape of compensation books the entire bid money, but the Settlement Department failed to verify the amounts of the compensation books. Thus the delay in adjustment of the entire bid money occurred due to negligence on the part of the Settlement Authorities.

9. No doubt considerable delay had also occurred in payment of the entire bid money on account of fault on the part of the respondents Nos.3 to 5 and the learned counsel for the appellants urged that the auction proceedings which have been confirmed in favour of respondents Nos.3 to 5 should have been set aside by the Settlement Authorities and the said property should have been resumed and it was available for transfer under the provisions of Settlement Scheme No.VIII as reconstituted on 16‑9‑1973 and it should have been transferred to the sitting tenants by metes and bounds as laid down in the said Scheme. In this connection Mr. Khalid Farooq Qureshi, Advocate, relied upon the judgment Muhammad Rashid v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner PLD 1962 (W.P.) Lahore 217 wherein it was held that the Chief Settlement Commissioner had no authority to extend period of payment of bid money beyond three months. On the contrary the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.3 to 5 contended that the Settlement and Rehabilitation Laws were of beneficial nature and that the Settlement Authorities had often been granting extensions to the respondents in the period‑ for payment of bid money and that in spite of the non‑payment of the same within the statutory period the Settlement Authorities had not cancelled the auction proceedings and that action of the Settlement Authorities had created a right in the respondents Nos.3 to 5 and they could not be penalized due to wrong act on the part of the Settlement Authorities. In this connection the learned counsel has firstly drawn our attention to the case of Punjab Province v. Sita Ram etc. PLD 1956 Federal Court 157 wherein it was held as under:‑- "Ordinance (XV of 1949) is really a piece of legislation which concerns itself with administration rather than with adjudication, "a droit administratif" concerning what is conductive to the welfare of the evacuees under the changed situation, rather than what is required by law under the strict principles of legal Jurisprudence. It is a legislation of extremely special nature providing a special machinery for dealing with an extraordinary situation. Decisions in cases relating to evacuee property have to depend on grounds of policy and not only on considerations that weigh with Courts of law." Again in the case of Rafiuddin v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner PLD 1971 S C 252 it was held as under:‑- 'Evacuee and Rehabilitation legislations are legislations of an extremely special character which are from the very nature of things to be construed not so much on considerations that would weigh with Courts of law but also on considerations of. policy. They were designed for meeting an extraordinary situation of a complex and confusing nature created by the influx of a large number of refugees who had to be settled and were intended to be so adaptable as to meet the changes in the situation that developed from time to time. They could, not, therefore, be construed upon strict legal principles and certainly not in such a manner as to defeat the very object for which such special legislation was designed."

10. We have very anxiously considered contentions of both the learned counsel in this respect. The very preamble of the Act shows that it was promulgated to provide for the payment of compensation to certain displaced persons for the losses suffered by them on account of expropriation by the Government of India of their rights in property in India or in any area occupied by India and the rehabilitation of others. The object and purpose of the Act was, therefore, rehabilitation and settlement of the Muslims who had been displaced from India and had come over to Pakistan. The auction of the said property was also a step towards such settlement and rehabilitation of Muslims displaced from India. The price which the said property was to fetch in auction proceedings was to be appropriated towards the rehabilitation and settlement of the aforesaid persons. Thus the primary purpose and object of the Act was to rehabilitate persons and not to disturb them. As such even if extensions in period of payment of bid money were allowed beyond the limit fixed by law, the sane were not exceptionable on this ground as well. Not only that but there is also a wealth of case‑law on the point that if the property was not resumed for failure to pay the price within the time fixed by the statute, it was presumed that there was automatic extension of time for payment of the same. In this respect a reference may with profit be made to the cases of Shah Wali v. Ghulam Din PLD 1966 S C 983, Muhammad Musa v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner 1974 SCMR 352, Shamroz Khan v. Muhammad Amin PLD 1978 SC 89 and Rashad Ehsan v. Bashir Ahmad PLD 1989 S C 146.

11. Actually under paragraph 21 of Settlement Scheme No.III, read with paragrpah 25 of the Schedule to the Act, the Settlement Authorities could resume the property in default of payment of the bid money, however, such resumption was not automatic and the E Settlement Authorities were required to make a specific order with regard to the extinction of the right of the auction‑purchasers to remain in possession of the property and then they could resume the same by dispossession of the auction‑purchasers. It is also provided in paragrpah 23 of the aforesaid Scheme that the purchaser could within 60 days of dispossession make payment of the arrears due from him alongwith a penal interest and could apply to the' Chief Settlement Commissioner for restoration of the property to him. This would also indicate that intention of the Act was rather to afford concession to the transferees of property in making payment of the transfer price rather than extinguishing their right to retain the same when they had failed to make payment within the statutory period.

12. The contents of the order, dated 12‑4‑1980 of the Settlement Commissioner (Industries), a copy of which is available in the record of the writ petition, would clearly indicate that the matter of adjustment of the bid money lingered on due to non‑verification of the compensation books by the Settlement Authorities and little fault lay on the shoulders of respondents Nos.3 to 5 in this respect and for that very reason the learned Settlement Commissioner did not deem it proper to cancel the auction and we think he was right in doing so.

13. The position which emerges from the aforesaid discussion is that although the entire bid money should have been paid by the respondents Nos.3 to 5 within a period of four months of the conveyance of acceptance of auction proceedings in their favour by the Settlement Authorities but the non‑deposit of the same within the aforesaid period cannot to made a ground to declare that the auction proceedings had become void and inoperative and the said property was available for transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII, as reconstituted on 16‑9‑1973. Since the Settlement Authorities had not cancelled the auction proceedings and had allowed further time to the respondents Nos.3 to 5 to make payment of the bid money as also the fact that the fault in this case again lay more on the shoulders of the Settlement Authorities we are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that the said property was available for transfer to the appellants.

14. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.3 to 5 that the appellants had no locus 'standi to file the writ petition for the reason that the said property was declared a big mansion and it was auctioned as such and the respondents Nos.3 to 5 had already paid the entire bid money in cash and through compensation books and it was no longer available property. This point was also raised before the learned Single Judge and it prevailed with him. We also agree with the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge. The said property was not available property. Moreover it had been auctioned as a big mansion and none of the appellants had taken part in the auction proceedings. We will, therefore, agree with the learned Single Judge that the appellants had no locus standi and in that sense they were also not aggrieved persons.

15. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.3 to 5 that the writ petition suffered from laches. However, this objection was not taken in the written statement submitted by the said respondents to the writ petition, we cannot allow it to be taken at the appeal stage.

16. For the aforesaid reasons we have come to the conclusion that there is neither any merit in the Intra‑Court Appeal in hand nor in the case objections. Both are dismissed with no order as to costs. A.A./837/P Appeal dismissed.