P L D 1989 Supreme Court 612 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought in an Urban Settlement matter; against the acceptance by the High Court, of a Writ Petition filed by respondent No.l. The petitioner is an auction‑purchaser while the respondent No.l is a transferee in possession of the property in dispute. After examining the merits of the petitioner's case the learned Judge concluded the impugned judgment with the following observations:‑ . "From the record it is established that the petitioner (Respondent herein) has paid the whole transfer price of the property in question and that nothing is due from him. This was done ‑by the petitioner under the order of this Court on 30‑3‑1976. The aims and objects of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act are to pay compensation and to rehabilitate the displaced persons acid other eligible persons. In this case the house in question was transferred to the petitioner on the basis o his possession in accordance with law. His application for reduction of transfer price, as observe earlier, was pending decision before the competent Settlement Authority. Under these circumstances, there was absolute no justification or auction o the suit house. Thus, the auction is without lawful authority on the very face of record which is hereby set aside and the transfer order of the house in favour of the petitioner is restored. The petitioner's application for reduction of price shall also be deemed to be pending in law." (Underlining is ours). Learned counsel tried to argue the point with regard to laches on the part of the respondent as also other points with regard to legality of the proceedings before the Settlement Authorities. He further tried to explain the position regarding deposit. made by the respondent under the orders of the Court and argued that this by itself would not dilute the effect of the earlier default. After hearing him, at some length, we have not been able to agree on the question raised. The point of laches does not go against the respondent. He has been agitating the matter and raising the dispute before the concerned authorities and there were also proceedings on his initiation otherwise to the High Court in its discretion rightly ignored this aspect of the matter. The respondent could not be non‑suited on laches in this case. The basic error committed by the Settlement Authorities was that the property was auctioned without properly determining the value of the property for purpose of deposit to be made by the respondent. That being so, the subsequent proceedings will not cure this defect. The respondent being in possession could not be punished for this basic default on the part of the Settlement Authorities themselves. His case as against the petitioner/ auction purchaser's position, vis‑a‑vis, relative merits, was much stronger. The deposit made by him under orders of the Court shows his bona fides and would not go against him. The default in payment of the amount in the foregoing context on account of basic defect in the order for auction, due to failure to decide the issue, will not accordingly make any difference. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused. M . B . A . / M‑989/ S???????? ??????????????????????? Petition dismissed.