' The dispute in this case relates to Plot No, 8565 measuring 9 Marlas 138 sq. Ft. Uttam Nagar Nawankot, Lahore. According to the petitioners, they are displaced person from East Punjab and they occupied the plot in dispute and made constructions on it. They claim to be in possession of the same till today. They submitted N.C.H. Forms for its transfer. These forms remained pending in spite of repeated reminders submitted by them. Ultimately the Deputy Settlement Commissioner vide order, dated 28th February, 1969 informed them that the plot in question had already been transferred to Abdul Razzak respondent on 5th July, 1961 through auction and P.T.D. Had also been issued to the auction-purchaser. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, therefore, eld that he was not competent to re-open or review this case at that stage. He application of the petitioners was, therefore, rejected, the petitioners led an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional Settlement Comissioner (Judicial), Lahore, on 29th June, 1966. The petitioners then led a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner but the same as dismissed, on 4th December, 1968. Hence this writ petition.
' The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is hat auction in favour of the contesting respondent could not take place less the forms of the petitioners were disposed of. A mere wrong enomination of forms could not disentitle the petitioners to get the plot which they are entitled under Scheme No, VI. Reliance is placed upon paras. 4 and 5 of Chapter II of the said Scheme. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the constesting respondent argues that the petitioners have failed to establish that they filed any form for this property and that the same was pending at the time of auction in favour of the respondent. He also contends that the writ petition suffers from laches. He, however, frankly concedes and rightly so. That if it is found as a fact that the petitioners had applied for the plot in dispute before the auction took place, then the auction would be illegal unless the petitioners' forms were disposed of.
3. On 6th November, 1970 when this case first came up for bearing before this Court, a report was called from the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. In spite of repeated reminders this report has not so far been received. It appears that earlier Mr. Hadayat Ullah Mokal, Settlement Commissioner (Legal) was asked to find out whether the file of the case was traceable in the Settlement Department or not. At the time of hearing of the case I as ked Mr. Maqbool Elahi Malik, Advocate for the Settlement Department to find out the file of the case. Mr. Muhammad Siddiq on his behalf personally went to the office of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in search of the file of this case. He alongwith some other clerk from the Subordinate Office told me that the original file containing the alleged N.C.H. Forms of the petitioners was not traceable. However, they produced the subsequent applications and forms filed by the petitioners. Thus, on the factual aspect of the case in spite of the best efforts neither the report of the Department nor the original file of the case has been made available to the Court.
4. There is no dispute that the petitioners are displaced persons in possession of the property in dispute. The question is whether the petitioners at the relevant time submitted any forms for the transfer of the property in question. It appears that the petitioners did file some forms at the relevant time. According to the receipts in their possessions (Copies Annexures 'B' and 'C') they filed N. C. H. Forms. The original receipts in their possession appear to be genuine and signed by a competent authority. They were shown to the Court and the opposite counsel, who could not doubt their genuineness. The date on these receipts is that of August but the year is not mentioned thereon. The objection by the contesting respondent regarding these receipts is two - fold. Firstly, the forms were N.C.H. And not plot Forms and secondly the address written in these receipts is Samanabad Ichhra and the inference is that they may relate to some other property. According to the order of the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner there is entry No, 125 in CSC-II Register of N.C.H. Forms and the names of the petitioners exist in the Register. The fact that the petitioners are in possession of original receipts coupled with the entry in the said register goes a long way to prove that at least they did file N.C.H. Forms. In fact, it was difficult for the learned counsel for the contesting respondent to deny this fact that the petitioners did not file any form at all. According to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner they filed wrong forms and instead of P. Forms they filed N.C.H. Forms. Now we have to see the effect of filing wrong forms. It is an admitted fact that even these co-called wrong forms (N.C.H.) have not been disposed of by any Settlement Authority. When the petitioners claimed the possession of the property in dispute it was necessary for the Settlement Authorities to dispose of their claim forms before including the property in the auction list. The mere wrong denomination of forms should not disentitled the petitioners at least from consideration of their claim forms. Under Settlement Scheme No, VI it was the duty of the relevant Settlement Authority to apply its mind and dispose of their claim forms before putting the property to auction. There -is no explanation whatever why the N.C.H. Forms of the petitioners were not disposed of by the Department before including the property in the auction. Even if according to the Department wrong form were filed, they should have been disposed of as such. So long the petitioners forms were with the Department there appears no justification to put the property to auction. On behalf of the petitioners reliance among others was placed upon Abdul Jabbar Khan and others v. Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and another and Abdul Malik and others v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner and others. Since it is established that the petitioners did file N.C.H. Forms and he same remained undisposed of before 5th July, 1961 when the property was transferred to Abdul Razzaq respondent in auction the impugned order1 2 transferring the property in favour of the respondent is clearly in violation of the scheme and, therefore, liable to be quashed.
5. As regards the objection of the contesting respondent about laches it is suffice to say that the first impugned order, dated 5th July, 1961 being void will have no value in the eye of law and the respondent cannot claim any right on the basis of such a void order. Moreover, the petitioners have been approaching the Department again and again but without any result in the peculiar circumstances of the case the respondent cannot successfully agitate the plea of laches against the petitioner.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is accepted the impugned orders are quashed and the case is remitted to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for decision afresh in accordance with law after giving notice to the parties concerned. The parties shall bear their own costs. PLD 1964 Kar. 365 PLD 1967 Lab. 520