P L D 1976 Karachi 668 (PLP)

3. The respondent No. 4 filed a Writ Petition being No. 215 of 1962 in this Court. On 13-2-1963, this Court allowed the petition with a direction to the Additional Settlement Commissioner to hear the parties afresh on two questions, namely, (a) whether the petitioner after submitting the alleged application for the transfer of the plot had raised any addi tional construction thereupon; and (b) whether the plot could be subdivided. The order went on to say that "the transfer order in favour of the respondent (the present petitioner) will be subject to any findings given by the Settlement Authorities on the question mentioned above".

4. The Additional Settlement Commissioner, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the plot in question could not be transferred to either party under the Settlement Scheme No. VI. Ac cordingly, by his order dated 6-1-64, he cancelled the P. T. D. issued to the petitioner and ordered that the plot be put to unrestricted public auction. The petitioner and the respondent No. 4 filed revision applications against the aforesaid order which came to be dismissed by the Settlement Commis sioner by his order dated 11-6-1964. The petitioner and the respondent No. 4 challenged the order in writ petitions which were dismissed in limine on 9-10-64. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application being No. K-95 of 1964 -in the Supreme Court of Pakistan seeking special leave to appeal against the order of the High Court but the same came to be dismissed in limine by the order dated 4-3-1965. The plot in question was then put to public auction on 28-5-1965, with notice to the petitioner. The petitioner filed objections challenging the holding of the auction but the representation went unheeded and the plot was auctioned in favour of the respondent No. 4 on 28-5-1965 for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000, which was the highest bid.

5. On 25-6-1965, the petitioner received a notice from the Settlement authorities informing him that the plot was again going to be put to public auction on 2-7-1965. The petitioner was present at the site and objected to the holding of the auction, on the ground that the Auction Committee was not properly constituted and that no proper notice was given to him as required under law. He, however, did not participate in the auction. The respondent No. 3 was the highest bidder in the sum of Rs. 2,90,

000. The petitioner applied for copy of order, if any, passed on his objections, but the same was not granted to him for months together, with the result that he made applications to the Chief Settlement Commis sioner and the Minister of Revenue, Government of West Pakistan, praying for the cancellation of the auction, and a fresh disposal of the property in conformity with the law, declared by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mst. Masooda Tashin v. S. Aijaz Hussain, Set tlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (P L D 1965 S C 680). It all went unheeded. The petitioner then filed a revision application before the District Judge and Settlement Commissioner, Karachi. Before the matter could be heard, the powers of the Settlement Commissioner were withdrawn from the District Judge and the Additional District Judges, and the revision application was therefore heard by the Settlement Commissioner. Karachi, who dismissed it on 15-12-1967. It is alleged that the auctions held on 28-5-1965 and 2-7-1965, and the orders of the Settlement Commissioner, were without lawful authority and of no legal consequence.

6. The earlier part of the allegations in the latter petition, as would have been seen, have already been referred to. After the Additional Settlement Commissioner, on remand from the High Court, had declined to transfer the plot in the said petitioner's favour, he had filed a writ petition, which was dismissed in limine. He also had filed a petition in the Supreme Court, seeking special leave to appeal, which ended in dismissal fn limine. The result was that the plot was put to a public auction on 28-5-1965 and he was the highest bidder in a sum of Rs. 4,00,

000. It is alleged that on 1-6-1965, on his application, the Additional Settlement Commissioner allowed 15 days' time for the payment of the bid money. As he fellill, he could not arrange for the payment:; He, therefore, again made an application, asking for another 15 days time to do so. He also addressed applications to the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the Minister of Rehabilitation, seeking extension of time and was informed by a letter to the Settlement Commissioner. West Pakistan, Lahore dated 4-1-1966, that no extension could be granted, as the plot had been disposed of in an auction. On enquiry, he learnt that the Additional Settlement Commissioner, without any notice to him had, on 2-6-1965 cancelled the auction proceedings in which he was the highest bidder, and in the auction held on 2-7-1*965, the plot had been purchased by the respondent No.

3. It is alleged that the petitioner had been deprived of his rights twice, first, when the Additional Settlement Commissioner rejected his claim for transfer, on grounds which conflicted with a later judgment of the Supreme Court and secondly, when he was denied time, for the payment of the auction bid. What was more, even the amount of Rs. 7,882 available in his compensation book, had been forfeited without giving him any opportunity to be heard.

7. It was argued by Mr. Sharaf Faridi, learned counsel for the petitioner Ameen Tareen, that the Auction Committee which conducted the auction dated 2-7-1965, consisted of an Additional Settlement Com missioner and an Assistant Account Officer, was not properly constituted and the auction proceedings were thus against the rules. Further there had to be a clear notice of 10 days, but in this case it fell short by a day. It was also not disclosed as to who was to conduct the auction. He urged that according to the terms of the auction, the respondent No. 3, the successful bidder in the last auction, had to deposit a sum of Rs. 76,500 cash, as 1/4th of the auction money but only Rs. 72,500 were accepted from him. Besides, a number of extensions were given to him for the payment of Rs. 2,19,500, though the demand notice initially gave only 15 days. This amount was paid through agreements of association with others in anticipation of the Central Government's Policy. He further contended that the balance of the 1/4th deposit was accepted by the Settlement Authorities as late as 10-3-1966. Mr. Abdul Naseer Khan, learned counsel for Bunyad Ali adopted these arguments. Mr. Sharaf Faridi, also urged that even the earlier auction was conducted, notwithstanding the protest of Ameen Tareen while even the copy of objections raised by him and the order thereupon, to file a revision petition, was not supplied. He urged that if the proceedings had to be conducted in a prescribed manner, and was not done. the same will stand vitiated and in that eventuality, Ameen Tareen will have the opportunity to press his claim under Scheme No. VIII.

8. Before examining these contentions, which were supported from various decisions, it has to be seen, as contended by Mr. Mazharuddin Siddiqui, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 in both the petitions, whether the petitioners, and especially Ameen Tareen, have any locus standi in the matter. (The further contention on behalf of Bunyad Ali in regard to the cancellation of the auction proceedings in his favour will be noticed later).

9. It is an admitted position that the claims of both the petitioners had been rejected by the Settlement Authorities, and even the writ petitions filed in this Court, and the petitions for special leave before the Supreme Court, had been dismissed in limine. The petitioners, under the circumstances, had no A" vested right left. They will have therefore no concern to question the transfer of the plot to somebody else. See Abdul Hamid Khan v. The Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore (1971 S C M R 711), Allah Bakhsh v. Hasan Mohammad and others (P L D 1967 Lah. 346), Abaul Khaliq and another v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Pakistan and others (P L D 1967 Lah. 639), managing Committee, Masjid Muhajreen, Lahore v. S. Ijaz Hussain Shah and others (P L D 1972 Lah. 245) and Ch. Mohammad Yunus v. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan and others (P L D 1972 Lah. 847).

10. Nor will any thing turn on the plea of their being potential bidders in a fresh auction, as observed in the cases of Abdul Hamid Khan, Abdul Khaliq and some others, referred to earlier.

11. Similarly no comfort can also be had from the rule laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Masooda Tahsin wherein the definition of "permanent building" in the Scheme No. VI was struck down, having been found to be inconsistent with paragraph 13 of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958.

12. The issues in dispute had assumed a finality and could not be. resurrected for any further agitation.

13. It was held in Mohsan Khan and another v. Chief Settlement Com missioner, West Pakistan and others (1969 S C M R 306) that the rules laid down in Mst. Masooda Tahsin's case would not be applicable retrospectively.

14. To the same effect are the observations in Income-tax Officer, Central Circle II, Karachi and another v. Cement Agencies Ltd. (P L D 1969 S C 322) that: "I do not see how on the basis of the judgment of this Court in Octavious Steel & Co. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Dacca, past and closed transactions could be re-opened." Similarly it was observed in Mufazal Ahmed v. Haji Abdus Sattar (16 D L R 92) that: "A subsequent ruling of a superior Court cannot undo the effect of a decision arrived at on the basis of the previous ruling . . . . ." 15. 1 am therefore clearly of the opinion, that the petitioners have no .locus standi on the basis of any claims of theirs under the provisions of Scheme No. VI, to challenge the rights of the respondent No. 3.

16. It now remains to see, whether there is any substance in the assertion ,of Bunyad Ali that his auction had been wrongfully cancelled.

17. It has been found, by the learned Settlement Commissioner that the auction proceedings of 28-5-1965 had not been confirmed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. Mr. Abdul Naseer Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Bunyad Ali could not controvert this finding. There is no gainsaying the fact that the Chief Settlement Commissioner and his delegatees, have got an unfettered power not to accept even the highest bid, and that too, without assigning any reason at all. If the auction was not confirmed in favour of Bunyad Ali, be will have no vested right again, to assail the subsequent auction : See Mohammad Din & Sons v. Province of West Pakistan and others (P L D 1969 Lah. 923).

18. What is more, under the terms of the auction, 1/4th of the bid money had to be deposited in cash within a period of 7 days. Admittedly, that was not done. Only a W Form was deposited which has been found by the authorities to be forged. It is not denied that the petitioner had only Rs. 7,882 available in his Compensation Book. In this view of the matter the auction was rightly cancelled, as held in Beeruddin v. Allah Bakhsh and others (1971 S C M R 176), Captain Saeed Gul Badshah and another v. Settlement Commissioner, Peshawar (1972 S C M R 669) and Mian Mohammad Rashid v. The Chief Settlement and Reha bilitation Commissioner, Lahore and another (P L D 1962 Lah. 217). The forfeiture of the amount in W Form was a logical corrollary of the failure to deposit the 1/4th bid amount, even in the absence of any fraud.

19. In the result, I will dismiss the petitions, but there will be no orders as to costs. Petition dismissed.