' The petitioner Kh. Abdul Qayyum was transferred a portion of property No, S-51-R-36, Lawrence Road, Lahore, demarcated by the Supreme Court on the plan 'X' as A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H in Civil Appeal No, 4 of 1972, decided on 22-3-73 as a result of compromise arrived at between Kh. Abdul Qayyum and other respondents to the said appeal (Annexure 'El. The uncertified copy of the plan 'X' is at. Annexure E/1 to the writ petition.
' However, at the instance of respondents 2 and 3, the earlier order of the Supreme Court was modified in Civil Miscellaneous No, 479 of 1975, decided on 13-4-76 (Annexure U). The relevant portion reads thus:- "Accordingly, we allow Civil Miscellaneous No, 479 of 1975, and exclude the two quarters in possession of Muhammad Bashir and Muhammad Rafi, petitioners from the portion marked A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H which has been transferred to Khawaja Abdul Qayyum, respondent." The review petition against the aforesaid order filed by the petitioner Abdul Qayyum was also dismissed by the Supreme Court in Civil Review Petition No, 29/R of 1976 dated 12-12-79 (Annexure V). In consequence, as a result of the order dated 29-4-74, passed, by the Settlement Commissioner (Annexure T), the servant quarters in the respective possession of respondents 2 and 3 were transferred to them on payment of transfer price and other dues. Consequently, Transfer Order bearing No, 1510 dated 12-12-74 was 'issued in favour of respondent No, 2, Likewise, Transfer Order No, 16001, dated 24-4-75 Was issued in favour of respondent No,
3. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents has produced in Court Original Transfer Orders. The same have been returned and photostat copies have been placed on the record.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 29-4-74 of the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore (Annexure on three-fold grounds, firstly; that the order dated 6- 8-62 of the Settlement Commissioner (Annexure D) whereby the entire house in question was transferred to the petitioner had attained finality and therefore, the same could not be reviewed by another Settlement Commissioner; secondly; the servant quarters could not go to the respondents 2 and 3, inasmuch as, servant quarters forms part of the main house under the Settlement Laws and since the main house admittedly stood transferred to the petitioner, the servant quarters could not be sliced away from the main house; and thirdly, the respondents 2 and 3 have simultaneously been pursuing the matter for the transfer of the disputed quarters under the Settlement Scheme No, VIII and therefore, in law and equity, they could not be permitted to purspe the remedy under Scheme No. 1 as well as under Scheme No, VIII, and the respondents 2 and 3 having lost their remedy under Scheme No, VIII up to the level of Settlement Commissioner by means of an order dated 23-1-69 of the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore (Annexure N) read with the order dated 10- 3-70 of the Settlement Commissioner (Annexure 0), they could not be allowed to reagitate the matter under Scheme No. 1.
3. Learned counsel has further submitted that notwithstanding the fact that the servant quarters, in question have been ordered to be transferred to the respondents 2 and 3 in terms of the order dated 13-4-76 of the Supreme Court in Civil Misc. Petition No, 479 of 1975 and 571 of 1975 (Annexure U), the same should be ignored in considering the entitlement of the contesting respondents because the order in question was a nullity in the eye of law, inasmuch as, the servant quarters under the Settlement Laws form part of the house. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Saleh and others v. Messrs United Grain & Fodder, Pakistan (1), wherein it was observed that if an order is a nullity, then every Court before whom it is brought is bound to ignore it and even a Third Class Civil Judge could hold that the High Court or the Supreme Court in taking up a case on a particular day delivered the judgment which was a nullity.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No, 2 submits that the petitioners never applied for the transfer of the property, in dispute, under Settlement Scheme No, VIII, inasmuch as, it is apparent from the order dated 22-1-1969 of the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore (Annexure N) that the review petition regarding the transfer of the quarter in dispute under Settlement Scheme No, VIII was filed by Mst. Hajra Bibi and not by the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondent has, however, conceded that the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore by his order dated 10-3-1970 (Annexure 0) rejected the claim of respondent No, 3 under Settlement Scheme No, VIII for the transfer of the quarters in his possession. He however, submitted that notwithstanding the rejection of his revision petition by the aforesaid order dated 10-3-1970 of the Settlement Commissioner, the respondent No, 3 is entitled to retain the servant quarter, in question, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Review Petition No, 29-R/1979 dated 12-12-1979, inasmuch as, in the review petition before the Supreme Court, certified copy of which has been placed on record, it was specifically stated by the petitioners themselves in para. 2 thereof that the respondents had obtained the order by concealment of facts, inasmuch as, the revision petition filed by the respondent No, 3 regarding transfer of the property, in question, under Settlement Scheme No, VIII, was rejected by the Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 10-3-1970, but notwithstanding the plea taken by the petitioners, the review petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 12-12-1979. This being so, it is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that irrespective of the fact whether the validity of the order dated 10-3-1970 of the Settlement Commissioner (Annexure 0) was not challenged before the appropriate forum, the respondent No, 3 has acquired a vested right to retain the quarter, in dispute, on the basis of the said judgment of the Supreme Court.
5. It is further argued by learned counsel for the respondents that irrespective of the merits of the case, the petitioners are estopped to file the present writ petition, inasmuch as, the validity of the permanent transfer of the quarters, in question, in favour of the contesting respondents is also settled by an ex parte decree dated 6-11-1976 of the Civil Court, Lahore in favour of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and against the petitioners to the following effect:- "Ex parte decree of the permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs qua the property in dispute, as the property in dispute already stands transferred permanently in the name of the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1 has no right thereto."
6. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the decree, in question, has attained a finality and the same cannot be attacked in these proceedings. I find much force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents.
7. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitions are based on erroneous assumption that a Court is always bound to strike down a void order regardless of the consequences of its decision. It is {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1964 SC 97 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' now well settled that a void order is not always to be struck down if the petitioner is either estopped by his conduct from challenging it or if he has been guilty of laches. In the instant case, the impugned order had been passed on 29-4-1974 and the writ petition has been filed on 10-3- 1980. The delay is too gross to be condoned irrespective of the question whether the impugned order is a nullity or not. Reference may be made to S. Sharif' Ahmad Ilashmi v. Chairman, Screening Committee, Lahore and another (1). In any case, since the petitioner failed to challenge the order of transfer in favour of the respondents within a reasonable time, it is not a fit case to grant any discretionary relief to the petitioner in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
8. In view of the above, I do not find any substance in the pleas raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The dispute regarding the transfer of the servant quarters is a past and closed transaction and the same stands finally concluded by a valid judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Review Petition No, 29/R of 1976, dated 12-12-1979, and the decree, in question, of the civil Court.
9. The Writ Petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. {{FOOT NOTE}} (1)1978 SCM R 367 {{FOOT NOTE}}