P L D 1975 Lahore 937 (PLP)

Ch. Amjid Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing : 30th August 1974. The dispute relates to property bearing No. 147/5, Ward No. 6, Bhawana Bazar, Lyallpur. It comprises of a shop on the ground‑floor and Chaubara (two rooms) on the first floor. The shop is divided into two halves and the one portion is in possession of respondents 3 to 10, successors‑in‑interest of Abdul Majid, who has since died.

2. At the time when the Settlement operations started the petitioners filed their CS form for the transfer of the entire property as one unit, whereas one Abdul Ghafoor, who is not party to the present proceedings, submitted his belated CH form for the transfer of one room of the Chaubara, situated over the shop. It is admitted that Abdul Majid, predecessor‑in‑interest of the contesting respondents, being a local never submitted any form for the transfer of any portion of the property. The Deputy Settlement Commis sioner treated the entire property as one unit and transferred the same in favour of the petitioners on their CS form. The appeals preferred by Abdul Ghafoor as well as by Abdul Majid were dismissed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, after the spot inspection, by his order dated 5‑3‑1960 and the property was held to be indivisible, comprising one unit. The revision petition filed by Abdul Ghafoor before the Settlement Commissioner was also dismissed by him by his order dated 26‑5‑1960, Annex. 'G'. A second revision petition was preferred by Abdul Ghafoor against the order of the Settlement Commissioner, which was also dismissed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 14‑10‑1960, Annex. 'H'.

3. Abdul Majid, the predecessor‑in‑interest of the contesting respondents also filed a separate revision petition against the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner rejecting his appeal by his order dated 5‑3‑1960. According to the learned counsel for the respondents the said revision petition was never disposed of and the same is even now pending adjudication and the notice for the hearing of the same has been issued by the Settlement Commissioner at the instance of the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner vide Annexure 'X', against which the present writ petition has been filed. However, this contention is controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, who relies upon various documents, such as Annexs. 'K' to 'P' in order to show that compromise was effected between the parties on 20‑3‑1960, whereby Abdul Majid agreed to withdraw his revision petition pending before the Settlement Commissioner and the learned Settlement Commissioner on his application consigned the same to record vide his order dated 1‑6‑1960, Annex. 'N'. It is admitted that such orders and documents do exist on the file, but according to the learned counsel for the contesting respondents all the proceedings in relation thereto are fake as Abdul Majid never appeared before the Settlement authority concerned in pursuance of the alleged application nor he was issued any notice. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that after the revision petition of Abdul Majid was consigned to record after having been withdrawn the respondent, had no locus standi to re‑agitate the matter after a lapse of about nine years, on 12‑3‑1970 vide their application Annex. 'Q', addressed to the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that since the revision petition filed by Abdul Majid bad not been disposed of, therefore, the applica tion addressed to the Chief Settlement Commissioner was competent.

4. The question as to whether the revision petition filed by Abdul Majid, the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents is still pending or not may not be so much relevant for the decision of the case. It is also not possible to decide this matter as it has become controversial. No necessary probe and enquiry can be held in the present proceedings. The question is that even if it is conceded for arguments' sake that the revision petition filed by Abdul Majid is still pending, the same is competent or not, whether Abdul Majid had any locus standi to agitate the matter against the transfer of the property in favour of the petitioners when he being a local had no entitlement for the transfer of the same and had not submitted any form in this regard. Ch. Amjad Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents has ; ehemently argued, while relying upon the provision as contained in section 20 (3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, that any person even having no interest in the property can apply to the Settlement authority concerned for exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction in order to see whether any order passed by a subordinate Settle ment authority is legal, proper or not, According to him it is not necessary that only an aggrieved party may make such an application. He has further argued that the writ petition against a mere show‑cause notice is not maintainable. He has relied upon A. R. Niazi, Advocate v. Pakistan etc. P L D 1968 S C

119. According to him the writ petition being premature should be dismissed as such.

5. It is correct that the provision as contained in section 20 (3) of the Act empowers a competent Settlement authority to exercise his revisional jurisdiction suo motu or on the revision petition having been filed by an aggrieved party against the order of the subordinate Settlement authority. As far as the suo motu revisional jurisdiction is concerned, the same was refused to be exercised by the Chief Settlement Commissioner by his order conveyed by the Settlement Commissioner (Urban), West Pakistan, vide Annex. 'S', dated 23‑6‑1970. This was in response to the application of one of the contest ing respondents, filed on 12‑3‑1970, as mentioned above. It was, however, directed vide Annex. 'T' by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on the same date in relation to the said application of Iftikhar Ahmad, respondent, that if the revision petition of his father Abdul Majid, was still pending then the same may be disposed of. The Settlement Commissioner concerned in compliance with the direction issued the notice against which the present writ petition has been filed.

6. Abdul Majid being a local had not submitted any form for the transfer of the shop. Under the law prevalent at that time he was not entitled to the transfer of the same. The fact that he was a local and had not submitted any form is admitted by him in his statement dated 2‑11‑1959 made before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner vide Annex. B'. The question arises as to how he could feel aggrieved against the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner whereby the property in question was treated as one unit and transferred as such in favour of the petitioners. He filed appeal against the said order before the Additional Settlement Commissioner vide Annex. D' on 27‑11‑1959, which, as mentioned above, was dismissed. In the appeal he prayed either for the transfer of the shop or for auctioning the same in order to enable him to participate in the auction proceedings. The shop obviously could not be transferred to him otherwise in accordance with law. As far his prayer for auction was concerned, it was based on the plea that since portion of the shop in his possession was a separate one, therefore, the petitioners being not eligible for its transfer the same may be auctioned. Under the law a prospective bidder has no right to agitate the matter for the transfer of any property. The latest law on the point as enunciated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court is reported in Muhammad Sharif v. ,Sharifud Din and 3 others 1972 S C M R

63. In that case the appellant before the Supreme Court had not filed any form for the transfer of any portion of the premises in dispute, which were held to be one unit and transferred as such in favour of the respondents. Since he was a local and had not filed any form, therefore, he did not file any appeal against the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. After some time, however, on the miscellaneous application of an informant, which was rejected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, the Additional Settlement Commissioner re‑opened the matter and held that the respondents were eligible to the transfer of one shop and the residential portion and the shop in occupation of the appellant before the Supreme Court was directed to be auctioned. This order was confirmed by the Settlement Commissioner in revision filed by the respondents. The orders passed by the Additional as well as the Settlement Commissioner were, however, set .aside by the High Court in writ jurisdiction by a learned Single Judge. This decision was upheld in L. P. A. The appellant thereafter challenged the decision of the High Court before the Supreme Court, which, while rejecting his appeal, held that he had no locus stands as he was not a person aggrieved who could have filed an appeal against the order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 15‑11‑1960 refusing to review his previous order dated 2‑12‑1959. It may be mentioned here that when the miscellaneous application was dismissed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, as mentioned above, the appellant before the Supreme Court challenged this decision in appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner. It was further held that as a local he was not entitled to the transfer of even a shop and a mere right to bid at an auction did not give a right to a person to intervene in any proceeding with regard to the transfer of any property.

7. In the present case, Abdul Majid, the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondent, being a local and having not submitted any form for the transfer of property could not feel aggrieved against the order of transfer of the premises in question as one unit in favour of the petitioners. His appeal, as such, was not competent and similarly he had no locus Standi to file any revision against the order of the Additional Settlement Commis sioner dismissing his appeal. If a person has no locus stand! or right for the transfer of the property then, he has also no right to agitate the matter with regard to its transfer in favour of any other person. Reliance in this respect can be placed upon Muhammad Ismail Shah v. Mst. Jafferi Begum 1969 S C M R 34 and Karam Bakhsh v. Muhammad Ashraf and another 1968 S C M R

740. In the case reported as 1968 S C M R 740 the petitioner before the Supreme Court had prayed that even if he had no locus standi for the transfer of the property the Settlement Commissioner could, under subsection (2) of section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, be deemed to have taken suo motu action in the matter particularly since there was no dispute that there were two shops which had been transferred to one person in contravention of the Scheme. It was held that even the transfer was in contravention of the Scheme, the petitioner had no locus standl in the matter. In the said case the premises allegedly consisting of two shops had been transferred to the respondent as one unit. The Additional Settlement Commissioner referred the matter to the Settlement Commissioner recommending that one of the shops may be taken away from the respondent. This was agreed to, but the orders passed in this regard were set aside by the High Court on the writ petition filed by the respondent taking the view that the petitioner had no locus standi in the matter and further that in any event the cave before the High Court did not involve any irregular transfer.

8. Further, Abdul Majid acted merely as an informant in his appeal Annex. 'D' filed before the Additional Settlement Commissioner conveying the information that the property consisting of two shops should not be transferred to the petitioners. It is now settled law that an informant has' no vested right in the property even if the allotment is found to be irregular and, as such, has no right of appeal or revision. Reliance in this respect can be placed upon Ablda Khatun v. Mian Ghulam Shabbir and another P .L D 1964 S C

793. Moreover, even if it is held for arguments' sake only that the revision petition filed by Abdul Majid was competent, the same cannot be disposed of by the Settlement Commissioner in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction the same having been exhausted in, disposing of the revision petition filed by Abdul Ghafoor. It was held by the Settlement Commissioner in his decision, while disposing of the said revision petition, that the property was indivisible and had been rightly transferred as one unit in favour of the petitioners.

9. The learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued, while relying upon A. R. Niazi's case, as referred to above, that since the petitioners have remedy to appear before the Settlement Commissioner and put forth all the pleas available to them in favour of their case and against the issuance of show‑cause notice, therefore, the present writ petition being premature may be dismissed. I feel that this contention has no force in the circumstances of the case. The discussion made above would show that Abdul Majid, the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents, having no locus standi at all or any right in the property could not agitate the matter in regard to its transfer against the petitioners and, as such, any notice in regard to his revision petition at this late stage would merely be an abuse of process of law and will also amount to further prolonging the agony. This being the position the matter calls for interference by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction.

10. The result is that the writ petition is accepted with costs and the impugned notice issued by the Settlement Commissioner is hereby declared, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. K. B. A. Petition accepted.