ABDUL HAMID KHAN vs SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE AND Other
This review petition challenges a prior Supreme Court judgment regarding the transfer of 'excess area' within an evacuee house compound. The petitioner, having previously failed in his claim to the transfer of the property where he occupied an out-house, sought to contest the Settlement Authorities' discretion in transferring the excess area to another party. The petitioner argued that under Chief Settlement Commissioner instructions, such excess area should be auctioned, and expressed a desire to bid. The Court held that the petitioner, having had his claim to the property finally rejected, lacked the necessary locus standi to challenge the transfer of the excess area. The Court further observed that a mere desire to bid at an auction does not confer a vested right to compel the auctioning of property. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, noting that any grievance regarding the violation of binding instructions from the Chief Settlement Commissioner should be addressed to that authority in a competent form, independent of the Court's previous order.
- Does a person whose claim to the transfer of an evacuee property has been rejected have locus standi to challenge the transfer of excess area of that property to another?
- Does a mere desire to bid for a property at an auction create a vested right to compel the auctioning of that property?
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 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 out-house, had been rejected, he had no locus stands 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 out-house on the estate for many year-3, 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 out-house of 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 stands 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 ChiefSettlement Commissioner, which were never mentioned at the bearing 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.