ABDUL HAMID KHAN vs THE SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE AND 2 Other
This petition sought a review of a portion of the Supreme Court's judgment dated 15 April 1966, which held that the transfer of an 'excess area' in an evacuee house compound was within the discretion of the Settlement Authorities and that the petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge it after his own transfer claim was rejected. The petitioner contended that under instructions from the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the excess area should have been sold by public auction, which he wished to bid on. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that a mere desire to bid at an auction does not confer a vested right to force a property to auction. The Court reaffirmed that a petitioner whose claim for transfer of the property has been finally rejected lacks locus standi to assert any rights regarding its subsequent disposal. However, the Court noted that if any binding administrative instructions were violated, the petitioner could approach the Chief Settlement Commissioner in a competent forum.
- Does a mere desire to bid for a property at a public auction confer a vested right to compel the authorities to bring that property to auction?
- Does a petitioner whose claim for the transfer of evacuee property has been finally rejected retain locus standi to challenge the disposal of the excess area of that property?
- Can a party raise new administrative instructions for the first time in a review petition before the Supreme Court if they were not mentioned during the main appeal?
ORDER
1. CORNELIUS, C. J.-By this petition, review is sought only of that part of this Court's judgment of the 15th April 1966, where it is said that transfer of the "excess area" included in the com--pound of an evacuee house to the transferee of that house was in the discretion of the Settlement Authorities, and there had been no illegality in the exercise of that discretion. It was said also that after the present petitioner's claim to transfer of the property in which he occupied only an outhouse, had been rejected, he had no locus standi to challenge the transfer of the `excess area' to the transferee.
2. Mr. Shabbir Ahmad's contention is that under certain instruc--tions of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, "excess area" beyond a prescribed minimum should be sold by auction, and he adds that his client, who has been living in an outhouse on the estate for many years, wishes to bid at such an auction. 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 are 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 behal 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.
3. Mr. Shabbir Ahmad refers us to certain instructions issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner which were never mention--ed at the hearing of the appeal. Up to that stage, the case of the petitioner was based on a claim to transfer of the whole or part of the property. If indeed there has been violation of any binding direction by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the matter may be moved before him in, some competent form, irrespective of anything said in our order of the 15th April 1966.
4. The petition is dismissed.
Cited by 9 cases
- Haji PUNHOO vs THE PROVINCE OF SIND and 3 others 1985 CLC 899
- Haji PUNHOON vs PROVINCE OF SIND And Other 1986 SCMR 349
- HAJI PUNHOON vs PROVINCE OF SIND and 3 others 1985 CLC 932
- Haji DHER WALI And Others vs Haji AHMAD DIN And Other 1986 SCMR 771
- AMEEN TAREEN vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, KARACHI AND 3 Other 1976 PLD Karachi 668
- AMEEN TAREEN vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, KARACHI AND 3 OTHERS 1976 PLD Karachi 668
- Ch. MUHAMMAD YUNOUS vs THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD AND 3 Other 1972 PLD Lahore 847
- MUHAMMAD LATIF KHAN Versus MISS R. AMIN 1973 PLD 262
- Masjid-e-Saheem & others vs Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority 2025 SHC 314