MAASOOM BIBI Versus DEPUTY A-DMINISTRATOR (R.P.), SIALKOT.

Mst. Maasoom Bibi petitioner filed this Constitution petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 on 26‑7‑1982 to assail the order dated 13‑2‑1979 of the Deputy Administrator Residual Properties and the order dated 22‑11‑1979 of the Administrator, Residual Properties, Lahore.

2. The grievance disclosed in this petition is that the petitioner occupied the plot in dispute in the year 1975 whereupon she raised construction and that the petitioner submitted a regular form for securing its transfer or. 30‑12‑1978 but the same was rejected on 13‑2‑1979 by the Deputy Administrator Residual Properties on the ground that the petitioner was not in possession of the plot in question since before the target date. The plot was then placed in auction and in the auction held on 23‑5‑1979 the highest bid was offered by Muhammad Sadiq, respondent No.3. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Deputy Administrator Residual Properties filed belated revision alongwith the application under section '5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. This revision was also dismissed by the learned Administrator Residual Properties on 22‑11‑1979 affirming the finding of the Deputy Administrator Residual Properties that the construction at site was not raised before the target date and as such the petitioner was not entitled to seek its transfer. It was also noted that before the filing of the revision petition, the bid had not only been confirmed but the transfer deed had also been issued. This petition was then filed after lapse of about three years to challenge the transfer through auction made in favour of respondent No.3 on the grounds that the petitioner was in possession of the plot in dispute prior to 1‑1‑1976, the target date and having raised construction thereon, was entitled to seek its transfer and that the plot should not have been auctioned without assessing the value of the superstructure and including the said value in‑ the reserve auction price. The delay was sought to be explained in paras. 9 and 10 of the petition with the plea that the petitioner who was a poor widow, had approached the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner through miscellaneous applications dated 5‑1‑1980 and 12‑7‑1982 but as no action had been taken thereon on the executive side, the petitioner was left with no alternative but to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court: It was added that there was hardly any delay in filing the writ petition, and whatever delay was caused was beyond the control of the petitioner.

3. Muhammad Younus was impleaded as respondent No.4 on an application of the petitioner vide order dated 24‑5‑1987 passed in C.M. No.1498/87. Muhammad Younue had purchased the property in dispute from Muhammad Sadiq, respondent No.3, auction‑purchaser, vide sale‑deed dated 17‑12‑1979. After purchasing the plot in question, Muhammad Younus filed a suit for possession on 7‑1‑1980 against Mst. Maasoom Bibi, the petitioner and her two sons namely Gulzar Hussain. and Muhammad Yousuf. During the pendency of these proceedings, the parties arrived at a compromise which has been placed on record as Annexure 'R.4' to the written statement filed by respondent No.4. This compromise is contained in the statements of the parties including the petitioner and Muhammad Younus respondent No.4 recorded by the learned Civil Judge on 26‑5‑1982. This reads as under:

Thereafter, the referee so appointed to assess the construction raised submitted his report which is Ex. R7 with the written statement of respondent No.4. According to this assessment, the reference assessed the value of the construction at Rs.6,120.90. The learned trial Judge passed the preliminary decree on 26‑5‑1982 and then followed the final decree on 29‑11‑1982. Muhammad Younus respondent has also deposited Rs.6,120.90 with the trial Court for payment to Maasoom Bibi, petitioner and her two sons as is evident from challan form Annexure 'F' with C.M. No. 2557/85. The execution application to execute the decree dated 29‑11‑1982 is admittedly pending before the executing Court.

4. The above resume of the facts would show that Measoom Bibi petitioner had already agreed on 26‑5‑1582 .to receive the value of the construction as assessed by the referee statedly existing on the plot, before filing the present constitution petition. It would be recapitulated that the constitution petition was filed on 26‑7‑1982. The. pendency of civil suit and the arrangement agreed to by the parties for resolving the controversy raised in the suit were obviously in the knowledge of the petitioner. These facts were suppressed. intentionally and delay was sought to be explained by making reference to two applications dated 5‑1‑1980 and 12‑7‑1982 moved on the executive side before the Chief Settlement Commissioner and by urging that there was no delay is filing the petition and that delay involved was in any case beyond the control of the petitioner. The explanation offered is obviously false. The petitioner is also guilty of suppression of material facts and of approaching the Court with unclean hands. This petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on account of laches as well as misconduct.

5. Even on merits, the petal loner has no case. The transfer of the plot in question was refused after recording the finding of fact that the petitioner had not raised the construction before the target date, meaning thereby that he was not in possessio of the plot before the target date and as such was not entitled to: seek transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. There is nothing to controvert this finding of fact. The petitioner as such has no locus standi to challenge the transfer made through auction in favour of respondent No.3. The petitioner as such cannot be allowed to urge that the auction is bad for non‑assessment of the superstructure. The superstructure goes with the evacuee property and hoc to be disposed of alongwith the plot. In any case as far as the petitioner is concerned the value of the superstructure has been assessed and the same had been deposited with the Civil Court. The petitioner can receive the said amount from the Civil Court in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties. The petitioner had no cause whatsoever t involve the respondents in further litigation, by filing this frivolous petition. The petitioner is obviously guilty of wasting public time. For all these reasons, the petition fails and‑ is dismissed with special costs of Rs.3,000 which shall be paid to contesting respondent No.4.

H. B.T./M‑805/L Petition dismissed.