' M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.-- The dispute relates to transfer of shop No,C-58/A in Moti Bazar, Rawalpindi.
This and the adjoining shop No,C-58/B had been purchased in open auction by respondent Mst.
Inayat Begum on 2-5-1962 for Rs,14,500 and Rs,15,000 respectively. She deposited her compensation book with a deferred payment of Rs,11,000 for adjustment against the transfer price of the shops. It appears that the entire amount available in the compensation book was adjusted towards the price of Shop No,C-58/B only and as no entry of payment had been made for the disputed shop, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner resumed the same by order dated 27-12-1975.
The petitioner being in possession of the shop, it was transferred in his favour under Scheme No, VIII on 23-7-1976. On coming to know of it, Mst. Inayat Begum moved an application for setting aside the resumption and for restoration of the shop but the same was rejected on 4-9-1977. She thereupon challenged the resumption order in the constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court. A learned single Judge of that Court found, after perusal of the record, that in fact one- fourth of the bid money had been adjusted from the compensation book of Mst. Inayat Begum against both the shops at the time of the auction. He, therefore, in view of the proviso to para. 2 of the re-constituted Scheme No,V111 held that the Settlement Authority had no power to resume the property from her name. On this view of the matter, the order of resumption dated 27-12-1975 as also the order of transfer of the disputed shop in favour of the petitioner was held to be without lawful authority and the Department was left to take steps according to law for realization of the outstanding amount for her. The petitioner brought an Intra-Court appeal but the same failed for precisely the same reason as expressed by the learned single Judge.
2. The proviso to para. 2 of the re-constituted Scheme No, VIII which was notified on 20-10-1973, reads: "Provided that, in cases where more than 25 per cent of the transfer price has already been paid, no resumption proceedings will be initiated, but transfer order, as provided under paragraph 11, will be issued."
' Under paragraph 11, no P.T.O. Or P.T.D. Is to issue but instead a Transfer Order shall issue. In case of default in payment of the transfer price, paragraph 17 empowers the Board of Revenue to effect the recovery as arrears of land revenue. It is, therefore, clear that the resumption of the disputed shop was not permissible on 27-12-1975.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that no relief in the discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court should have been allowed to the respondent who was guilty of laches in not making payment of the price for nearly 13 years. The contention has no force because she derived her protection from a legal provision which had made the order of resumption illegal and without jurisdiction. In the circumstance no case is made out for interference with the orders of the High Court. The petition is dismissed.