ABDUL HAMID KHAN vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER AND 2 OTHERS
This matter arises from a review petition seeking modification of a previous judgment dated 15th April 1966 passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, specifically regarding the transfer of excess area in the compound of an evacuee house. The core legal question concerns the locus standi of a petitioner, whose claim for the transfer of the property had been finally rejected, to challenge the transfer of the excess area or demand its public auction based on instructions of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The court held that a mere desire to bid at an auction does not confer a vested right or locus standi to challenge the administrative discretion exercised by the Settlement Authorities in transferring the excess area. The Supreme Court established the principle that a person occupying only an outhouse whose substantive claim for property transfer has been rejected lacks the requisite locus standi to question the disposal of excess property or demand an auction thereof.
- Does a person whose claim for the transfer of an evacuee property has been rejected have the locus standi to challenge the transfer of excess area in the compound of that property?
- Does a mere desire to bid for a property at an auction carry a vested right to bring such property to auction?
ORDER
1. ' A. R. 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 compound 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 instructions 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 an 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 behalf 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 stardi 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 mentioned 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 3 cases
- Prime Builders vs Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation (Pvt) Ltd & 2024 SHC 872, 2025 PLD Sindh 166
- PRIME BUILDERS Versus PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD. 2025 PLD 166
- MUHAMMAD JAMIL vs PAKISTAN RAILWAY BOARD And OTHER 1994 CLC 848