MUHAMMAD LATIF KHAN Versus MISS R. AMIN

SARDAR MUHAMMAD IQBAL, J .‑The land in dispute measur ing 8 kanals 2 marlas and 4 sarsais was allotted by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities to respondents 1 to 6. The petitioner moved an application on the 27th of January 1962, to the Enforcement Staff complaining that the allotment in their favour was obtained illegally as an agricultural land whereas in fact it was a building site. The Director of Enforcement Staff reported the matter to the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands), Montgomery. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 17th of May 1965. rejected the reference by observing that the area was agricultural land. The petitioner preferred an appeal against this order which was accepted by the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Montgomery on the 7th of October 1965, on a short ground that the order had been passed without hearing the petitioner. He, therefore, remanded the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands) for fresh decision. The case was then decided by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Montgomery. exercising the powers of the Additional Settlement Commissioner. He, by his order dated the 9th of February 1966, held that this particular piece of land is agricultural land and that it had rightly been confirmed to the respondents. He also held that sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, .did not apply to the case. The petitioner has moved this application under section 21 of the Act.

2. The petitioner admittedly has no interest in the land in dispute. He made a complaint to the Director, Enforcement Staff 'Annex. C' only as an informer. Petition under section 21 can be moved by an aggrieved person only. Learned counsel contends that if the allotment of the respondents is cancelled the petitioner will be a potential bidder in an auction which is the only process through which the property can be transferred under paragraph 14 of the Schedule to the Act. He relied on Muhammad Amin v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commis sioner (P L D 1966 Kar. 91), wherein it was held: ‑

"That a non‑claimant seeking transfer of house had locus standi to challenge transfer to locals on negotiation basis instead of public auction."

This authority was however, overruled subsequently in Haji Adam v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (P L D 1968 Kar. 245), wherein it was held: ‑

"The sole ground on which he claimed to be an aggrieved .party was that if the property was put public auction he would be able to bid at it. But as observed by the Supreme Court that right is shared by every other citizen of this country. Can it be said that every such person who might have been able to bid if an auction had been held would have a vested right in the matter of the transfer of such a property, and if at was transferred otherwise than by auction he could claim to have suffered injury and say that he was directly aggrieved? in other words, can it be said that he was legally aggrieved. The answer to that question, in our opinion, must be in the negative."

Earlier the Supreme Court had observed in Abdul Hamid v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (PLD 1966 SC 719) :‑

"Lastly as the entitlement of the appellant had been rejected by the Settlement Commissioner by order dated the 12th September 1961, he no longer had the locus standi to object to the transfer of the "excess area" in favour of the respondent No. 3."

Abdul Hamid filed a review petition against this order and their Lordships of the Supreme Court while disposing of the review petition observed in Abdul Hamid v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (1971 SCMR 711): "The mere desire to bid for a property at an auction does not carry a vested right" and was held, that he had no locus stands to assert any right in respect thereof. Thus, it is finally settled by the law declared by the Supreme Court that a prospective bidder in an auction is not an aggrieved A person and he has no locus stands to challenge the transfer made of a property to any person from the compensation pool.

3. The petitioner is an informant and has no personal right or interest in the property as held in Abida Khatoon v. Ghulam Shabbir (PLD 1964 SC 793). If the Chief Settlement Commissioner or his delegate had held the transfer to be irregular the respondent as the transferee having a vested right in the property could move by way of a revision petition under section 21 in the High Court, but the "informant has no vested right in the property and certainly would have no right of" revision under section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act "to have the decision reconsidered or reversed, if it went in favour of the transfer being regular".

4. The petition has no merit and is dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.