SAYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.--- Litigation concerning property No. S-85-R-7/9 commonly known as Cooper Hostel situated in Chowk Chauburji, Bahawalpur Road, Lahore, which statedly is large and valuable one, has a long chequered background, which in view of the order that I propose to pass need not be repeated here. Suffice it to observe that late Malik Ghulam Ahmed, the predecessor- ininterest of the petitioner who had entered the premises as lessee was later on transferred area measuring 5-kanals 2- marlas comprising Khasra No. 6750 by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in the years' 1963 under Settlement Scheme No. VI. The said transfer was affirmed by the Notified Officer vide his order dated 24.12.1986 and was upheld by a learned Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 7.3:1996 passed in W.P. No. 53-R/87 and other connected writ petitions on the subject. The judgment of the learned Division Bench was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, which gave rise to C.As. Nos. 1245, 1369 and 1370 of 1996 and 1323 and 1324 of 1997. The petitioner herein was party before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. The said appeals came up for hearing on 9.6.2000 when in view of consensus and arrangement between the parties it was agreed that the matter be remanded to the Notified Officer conceding, however, the transfer in favour of Mr. Naveed Ahmed Malik son of late Malik Ghulam Ahmed, as its owner in possession. The relevant part of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan to that extent is as under:- "In view of the submissions and statements made by the learned counsel for the parties that the parties were not given due opportunity of hearing and were not allowed to produce evidence in support of their contentions , thereby they were condemned unheard which resulted in the miscarriage of justice, consequently the impugned orders dated 24.12.1986 and dated 7.3.1996 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) Lahore/Notified Officer and by the Lahore High Court respectively, except the finding with regard to portion of land from disputed land transferred by settlement authorities to late Malik Ghulam Ahmad succeeded by Malik Naveed Ahmed, are set aside and the case is remanded to Notified Officer/Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Lahore with the directions to dispose of the matter with regard to the remaining disputed land within three months from the date of receipt of this order in terms of formulated points hereinafter mentioned and the parties would be at liberty to produce the evidence within one month, if necessary, the matter may be heard on day-to-day basis."
By formulating points the matters was remanded to the Notified Officer and appeals were disposed of accordingly by their Lordships. A Criminal Original No. 49/03 was then filed by the petitioner which was disposed of by their Lordship on 5.11.2003 by invalidating an order dated 14.10.2003 passed by Mr. Muhammad Nasim Nawaz, the then Notified Officer and the matter was ordered to be decided afresh by the Notified Officer/District Officer (Revenue), Lahore in accordance with law within a period of one month. It was in this context that order dated 29.1.2004 was passed by respondent No. 1, which is sought to be assailed through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
2. The main thrust of the learned counsel for the petitioner in assailing the order passed by respondent No. 1 is that he has not kept in view the formulation of the points made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan nor the record was summoned/considered by him. According to him the matter pertaining to a property worth of millions could' not be decided by him in such a cursory manner. He has made reference to Pervaiz Oliver and others v. St. Gabrial School through Principal and others (PLD 1999 S.C. 26), Jameel Ahmed v. Saifuddin (PLD 1994 S.C. 501), Mst. Aqila Begum and another v. Pakistan Employees Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. And others (PLD 2004 Karachi 1), Administrator, Thal Development/Chief Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Civil Secretariat Lahore and another v. Mahboob Ali Khan (since deceased) represented by legal heirs (PLJ 1986 S.C.
684) and Syed Muhammad Iqbal Shah v. Member, Board of Revenue and 4 others (1995 CLC 583).
The learned counsel for the respondents to the contrary object to the very locus standi of the petitioner and contend that as the area transferred to the predecessor-ininterest of the petitioner was kept intact by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and since he cannot lay claim beyond that, he is not an "aggrieved" person qua the impugned order nor can assail the same. Reference in this context has been made to Abida Khatoon v. Mian Ghulam Shabbir, Settlement Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan (PLD 1964' S.C. 793) and Muhammad Latif Khan v. Miss R. Amin and 6 others (PLD 1973 Lahore 262). They are, however, at one that whatever has been allowed to be retained with the petitioner by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan the respondents would honour and respect the order of the apex Court.
3. There is no denying the fact and it is quite evident from the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 9.6.2000 as well, that area owned and possessed by the petitioner (5- kanals 2-marlas) comprising Khasra No. 6750 was allowed to be retained by him. There appears a substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner cannot lay claim over and above nor extend his entitlement, except to what was recognized by the Notified Officer in order dated 24.12.1986, the Division Bench of High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. He thus cannot be considered to be an "aggrieved" person to maintain a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 qua rest of the property. A remote possibility of an informer to gain something in case he succeeds in his information does not bring him within the ambit of an "aggrieved" person for maintaining a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. In Anjuman Arain, Bhera v. Abdul Rashid and others (PLD 1982 S.C. 308) the transfer in favour of the respondent was assailed on the ground that in transferring the area to the respondent "the law had not been followed". The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, however, observed that "this Court has now held in several decisions that a party acting pro bono public had no locus standi to call in question the transfer of property in favour of a third party unless he has a personal interest in the matter. We may add that a person can be deemed to be "aggrieved" if he has some interest in the corpus of the party, to which the law attaches some sanctity. It is only if the appellant can demonstrate some interest in the property, to which some legal sanctity was attached, can he be considered as an aggrieved party." In the present case whatever be the interest of the petitioner in the property in dispute the same stand recognized by the Court and not beyond that in Ahmad Jamal v. Nazir Ahmad Khan and others (1975 SCMR 24) it was observed that "once it is decided that the petitioners are not entitled to the transfer of the premises, they have no locus standi to object to the transfer thereof to any other person" In All Muhammad v. Makhdoom Sirajul Haq Qureshi (1975 SCMR 33) it was again reiterated that "In any event, the present petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the validity of the transfer, because, he is not a person who had acquired any vested right to the transfer of the property." Reference in this context may also be made to Karam Bakhsh v. Muhammad Ashraf and another (1968 SCMR 740) as well. In view of the settled position by the precedents of the apex Court, reference to any other citation in inapt. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of lack of locus standi looses its significance.
In view of the above the petitioner has no locus standi to agitate the matter any further as his entitlement has remained intact and transfer stand affirmed and safeguarded by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. He should feel content with what he has been transferred. The petition thus is dismissed with the above observations. .