1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This order will dispose of five petitions for leave to appeal ; three filed by Sh.
2. Abdul Haque, Advocate, namely, Civil Petitions bearing Nos.. 1002/75, 187/77 and 772180 and two filed by Dr. Safdar Bokhari, namely, Civil Petitions bearing Nos. 597/80 and 598/80. All these petitions relate to the transfer of an evacuee plot bearing No. 45, Masson Road. Lahore and, therefore can conveniently be taken up together.
3. The facts which form the background are that the plot bearing No. 45 Masson Road, Lahore, measuring 4 kanals, 19 marlas 15 sq. Ft. Was put to auction on 25-4-1962 under Settlement Scheme No. VI and the highest bid of Rs. 90,500 was offered by Mian Muhammad Iqbal-ul-Saqlain. The P. T.
4. O. Was issued in his favour on 3-7-1962. Out of the aforesaid amount, he paid Rs. 49,880'00, towards the price of the plot. Later on, the transferee associated with Sh. Abdul Haque, Advocate (petitioner in the first three Civil Petitions and the contesting respondent in the last two named petitions), who allegedly submitted his own compensation book and. Those of two other claimants, Khurshid Ali Khan and Mst. Mahmooda Begum, both from Karachi for the payment of the balance price. No amount seems to have been deducted from the compensation book of Sh. Abdul Haque and unfortunately the compensation books of his associated Khurshid Ali Khan and Mst. Mahmooda Begum were found to be bogus with the result that nothing was paid towards the balance of the transfer price. A notice appears to have been issued to Mian Mohammad Iqbal-us-Saqlain by the Settlement Department on 11-12-1965 asking him to pay the balance. In reply, how--ever, he stated that he had associated with Sh. Abdul Haque and further notices be issued to him. It appears that this notice was also not handed over by Mian Mohammad lqbal-us-Saqlain to Sh. Abdul Haque and. Consequently, no payment was made towards the balance of the price in relation to the said auction and, therefore, the property was resumed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 25- 9-1967.
5. The property was, thereafter, again advertised for auction. However, the Chief Settlement Commissioner passed an order on 25-11-1967 to delete the property from the auction list and, later on, on 28-2-1968 he sanctioned the transfer of the plot in favour of West Pakistan Small Industries Corpora--tion which wanted to set up its office thereon. The Corporation also was desirous for the transfer of the adjacent plot No. 44 but subsequently got disinterested in making any construction on Plot No. 45. Consequently, the Settlement Organisation again included the plot in the auction list on 16-9-1968 and invited objections to its disposal through auction .By 3-10-1968. As no objection appears to have been filed, the property was again put to auction on 5-10-1968 and Dr. Safdar Bokhari, petitioner in Civil Petitions Nos. 597 and 598 of 1980 was the highest bidder (Rs. 67,500'00) therein. The bid was confirmed- in his name and after the full payment of transfer price, a P. T. D.
6. Was issued to him on 1-7-1970. He got the building plan sanctioned and started to raise the construction. At this stage, Sh. Abdul Haque rent a telegram to Dr. Safdar Bokhari not to raise any construction on the plot as he was its earlier transferee through association with the first auction bidder but Dr. Safdar Bokhari ignored the said notice and continued with the construction of the house. In the meanwhile, as the Settlement authorities were not paying any heed to the protestation made by Sh. Abdul Haque, he moved the Martial Law authorities and also met the Chief Settlement Com--missioner and ultimately on 19-9-1971, the Chief Settlement Commissioner forwarded the case to Syed Wilayat Ali Bokhary, Settlement Commissioner to dispose of the whole matter in exercise of his suo motu revisional jurisdic--tion.
7. The said learned Settlement Commissioner in a detailed order passed on 28-11-1973 held that the property in question was not available for transfer in auction and, therefore, the second auction in favour of Dr. Safdar Bokhari was illegal which was, accordingly, set aside. He, however, directed Sh.
8. Abdul Haque to make payment of the balance price in cash within 30 days, as the compensation books furnished by him had been found to be bogus. He further directed him to pay price of the material used in the building as well as the cost of construction which was to be determined by a technical person from the P. W. D. To Dr. Safdar Bokhari. It may also be observed that in case the payment of the balance price and the amount found payable to Dr. Safdar Bokhari was not made by Sh. Abdul Haque, the plot in question was to remain transferred in favour of the latter.
9. Both the parties felt dissatisfied with the above. Sh. Abdul Haque felt aggrieved against it on the ground that he was not liable to pay the price of the material available on the spot and used in the construction raised by Dr. Safdar Bokhari, as according to this, it would be placing premium on the acts of a trespasser. Furthermore, he was not satisfied with the direction that he should pay the balance of the transfer price in cash. These directions were challenged by him by filing a writ petition (W. P. 1112-R/73) in the Lahore High Court. Dr. Safdar Bokhari, on the other hand was dissatisfied by the cancellation of the second auction through which he bad obtained the transfer of the plot in his favour. He, therefore, challenged the order of the Settlement Commissioner by filing Writ Petition No. 1115/R of 1973. Both the writ petitions were heard together by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court (Shafi-ur-Rehman, J.) who accepted the writ petition filed by Dr. Safdar Bokhari but rejected that filed by Sh. Abdul Haque. The learned Single Judge's order was grounded mainly on the consideration that the Settlement Commissioner was not competent in the circumstances of this case, inter alia, the issuance of the P. T. D. To set aside the order of transfer in favour of Dr. Safdar Bokhari in exercise of the suo motu revisional jurisdic--tion. This order was passed on 15-8-1975.
10. In the meanwhile, Act VI of 1975 namely, the Law Reforms (Amend--ment) Act, 1974, to amend Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, had been passed and came into force on 13-1-1975. By section 2 of the said Act. Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 was amended in the sense that sub-- section (21) in the proviso after the words "one appeal", the words "or one revision or one review" was inserted. Consequently, Sh. Abdul Haque to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge not only filed two intra Court Appeals (Nos. 172 and 173 of 1975), (i) whereby his writ petition was dis- -missed, and (if) that of Dr. Safdar Bokhari was accepted but also as a measure of abundant precaution filed two petitions for leave to appeal directly in this Court, namely, Civil Petitions Nos.
11. 1002/75 and 187/77. The last-mentioned two petitions remained pending in this Court while the intra Court Appeals filed in the Lahore High Court were taken up and disposed of on 23-2-19800; the intra Court Appeals directed against the judgment accepting the writ petition of Dr. Safdar Bokhari was allowed in toto, while the intra Court Appeal filed against the dismissal of his own writ petition was allowed to the extent that he was allowed to pay the balance of the auction price through compensation books instead of through cash. However, the direction that he must pay the price of the building material and cost of construction as held by Syed Wilayat Ali Bokhary, Settlement Commissioner, was not interfered with.
12. The judgment of intra Court Appeal Bench dated 23-2-1980 has given rise to three petitions in this Court; two by Dr. Safdar Bokhari;namely, one directed against the order allowing the appeal against the acceptance of his writ petition, while the second is directed against the order whereby Sh. Abdul Haque was allowed to make payment through compensation book, etc. (C. Ps. 567 and 598/80). The third petition by Sh. Abdul Haque (C. P. No. 772/1,0) is directed against that part of the order of the I. C. A. Bench, whereby he has been required to pay the cost of the building material to Dr. Bokhari. All these five petitions have, therefore, been heard together.
13. Leave to appeal is granted to consider, inter alia the questions :-
(i) whether the I.-C. A. Bench had the jurisdiction to decide the appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15-8-1975 in the face of the amendments carried out by Act VI of 1975 ;
(ii) whether the cancellation of first auction in which Sh. Abdul Haque claims to have become an associate was rightly cancelled ;
(iii) whether Sh. Abdul Haque, who had not paid any amount from hi compensation book towards the transfer price in connection with the first auction, could at all be regarded as an "associatee" and, therefore could press his claim to the transfer of the property ; and
(iv) whether Syed Wilayat Ali Bokhari, Settlement Commissioner could have undertaken suo motu revisional proceedings after the issuance of the P. T. D. In favour of Dr. Safdar Bokhari.
14. These and some other questions arise for consideration. Leave is, accordingly, granted in all the five matters. The first two matters, namely Civil Petition No. 1002/75 and Civil Petition No. 187/77 are barred by time. The delay is condoned, subject to all just exceptions. Sh. Abdul Haque shall deposit security in the sum of Rs. 2,000, in connection with three petitions filed by him. Dr. Safdar Bokhari will also deposit Rs. 2,000, in connection with two petitions filed by him.
15. The interim order passed in Civil Petition No. 597/80 on 20-5-1980 in favour of Dr. Safdar Bokhari shall continue meanwhile.
16. The appeals to be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if necessary.
17. All the appeals to be set down for bearing as early as possible. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.