MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER

The dispute in this case is about Shop No. 2/377‑A‑4, situated in Chowk Pakistan, Gujrat. This shop was disposed of by public auction some where is May 1960 where respondent No. 2 turned out to be the highest bidder for Rs. 14,100. Her bid was accepted on 28‑6‑1960, by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner. P. T. O., was issued to her on 5‑8‑1960,and P. T. D. was issued on 5‑12‑1962, Hakim Hafiz Muhammad Hussain who is a local and who was an occupant of this shop, it appears, attorned to the transferee and started paying rent to her till 4‑12‑1963, and even thereafter. (When respondent No. 2 transferred her rights in the said property to her sons Muhammad Sarwar and Zafar Iqbal)‑uptil March 1965. Thereafter the petitioner stopped paying rent whereupon proceedings for his ejectment were initiated under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Res triction Ordinance which according to the written statement which was. filed by the contesting respondent on 29‑11‑1973, were still pending.

2. It appears that as a result of the hostility which had started the: petitioner on 25‑10‑1966, filed an L. S. form for the transfer of this shop under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. This application was dismissed by the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 19‑6‑1967, on the ground that the property having already been permanently transferred to respondent. No. 2 was no longer available. An intimation of this decision was, conveyed to the petitioner on 20‑6‑1967. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 4‑9‑1967. He filed a revision which also met the same fate and was dismissed by the learned Settlement Commissioner on 25‑5‑1968. The petitioner has filed: the present writ petition in this Court against the aforesaid proceedings and orders.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the settlement authorities were not justified in rejecting the L. S. form of his client. The contention has no merit. It is a common ground between the parties that the property had been disposed of far earlier and P. T. D. had been issued to respondent No. 2 on 5‑12‑1962. It has been laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme.. Court in Aminuddin v. Settlement Commissioner and others (1973 S C M R 624) and Syed Murid Hussain Shah v. Mufti Muhammad Yousaf Ali are others (1974 S C M R 8), that after a property has been permanently transferred it goes out of the compensation pool and it cannot be allotted by the Settlement Autho rities. The learned Settlement Authorities in the instant case were, these fore, justified in not attending to the L. S. form filed by the petitioner, along after the issuance of P. T. D. to respondent No. 2. Another fact which is to be taken note of for the purpose of deciding the present writ petition is the conduct of the petitioner as has been mentioned in the earlier paragraphs of this judgment. The petitioner very well knew the factum of transfer. He, as stated in the written statement filed by respondent No. 2, attorned to her and kept on paying rent to her as well as to her sons. This factual aspect which was pleaded in paragraph 3 of the written statement of respondent No. 2, and was supported by an affidavit has not been controverted by the petitioner in any form, even though there are signatures of learned counsel for the petitioner of having received that written state ment on 29‑11-1973. After having attorned to the transferee/respondent it was not open to the petitioner to take exception to the title of this own land lord.

4. The last point argued was that the auction in the instant case having been confirmed in favour of the respondent by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner, was of no avail because according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the Additional Settlement Commis sioner, had no jurisdiction/authority to confirm an auction. The contention has no merit. Instructions for disposal of shops by auction are contained." on page 103 of the Settlement Manual (Old Edition) where an additional Settlement Commissioner acts as a Chairman and is competent to confirm or cancel an auction‑See Muhammad Din v. Settlement Commissioner, Peshawar Division, Peshawar and others (P L D 1973 S C 117), where it was held that the Addi tional Settlement Commissioner being Chairman of the Auction Committee was fully authorised to cancel auction in pursuance of terms and conditions of auction. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Fazal Karim & Bros. v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and others (P L D 1964 Pesh.129) and Alif Gul v. The State and 4 others (P L D 1964 Pesh. 238), for the proposition that power to confirm an auction vested only in the Chief Settlement Commissioner and that such power could be delegated by him only by Notification in the official Gazette. No doubt, in Memo. No. 839‑P I.‑Reh. 60, dated 9th January 1960, printed on page 103 of the Settlement Manual (Old Edition) it is laid down that the auction is tu be confirmed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner but, he argued,, that the said Memo did not constitute a Notification and, therefore, the Additional Settlement Commissioner had no power to confirm an auction. The contention has no merit. This defect was overcome by the Legislature by amending the provisions of section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)‑(by means of Ordi nance XIII of 1964)‑wherein it was added that the transfer could be made by the Chief Settlement Commissioner or "any other offer authorised in writing in this behalf by him." In Ordinance XIII of 1964, there was contained section 3 which reads as follows :‑

"Anything done, action taken, order passed, rule made or notification, issued or purporting to have been done, taken, passed, made or issued under any of the aforesaid Acts, before the promulgation of this Ordi nance shall be deemed to have been done, taken, passed, made or issued under such act as amended by this Ordinance and shall have7 and shall be deemed always to have had effect accordingly."

It would thus appear that the power given in the Memo., dated 9‑1‑1960, by the Chief Settlement Commissioner to the authorities mentioned therein would stand valid and would not suffer from the objection which is being raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. There is another aspect of the case and that is that the‑ petitioner is really acting in the capacity of an informer though he has cloaked his identity by submitting that he was filing an L. .S form which should b accepted after the information in the irregularity of the transfer as put forward by him was given effect to. It is well settled that an informer had no locus standi to file a writ petition‑See Muhammad Siddiq etc. v. Chie Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore etc. (P L D 1965 S C 123), merely by putting an L. S. form the informant cannot conceal his real status. The petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition. I hold accordingly.

6. The result is that this writ petition has no merit and is hereby dis missed with costs.

K. B. A. Petition dismissed.