1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-Leave to appeal was granted to the appellant t examine whether the High Court was legally justified in dismissing on 29-3-1981 the constitutional petition filed by him on the sole ground that it suffered from lathes notwithstanding the fact that he was a party to the proceedings pending in the Supreme Court concerning the same cause which terminated only a month before the institution of that constitutional petition.
2. ' The background of the constitutional petition is that there is a building on Plot No, S. 64-R 112 in Anarkali, Lahore known. As Bakshi Market. It comprises 34 shops on ground floor, 7 residential flats on upper floors, one hotel containing about 20 roomson first and second floors, godowns and garages; and an open plot having temporary construction. The appellant who claims to be a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir and to be in possession of a shop in this building known as 'Delhi Cloth Mill' filed a KNCS form for the transfer of the said shop. Above that shop were the flats of Abdus Sattar and Muhammad Iris who also filed C H forms for the transfer of their respective flats.
3. The other occupants of the. Portions of the building also applied for transfer of the portions in their possession. The whole building was, however, in 1960 or near about declared as a 'Big Mansion'.
4. When the Chief Settlement Commissioner's directive for transfer of big mansion by negotiation on 50 years gross annual rental was issued, the appellant 'and Abdus Sattar offered 55 years rental for their respective portions. It appears that though the whole property was declared as a big mansion portions of it were disposed of under Settlement Scheme No. 1 while the portion in possession of appellant and the two flats above were disposed of as big mansion. This portions was auctioned in favour of Syed Nawazish Hussain and others. Ultimately, such a disposal of the property was challenged in constitutional petition and finally decided by this Court in the case of S. M. Fakhar Hussain and 6 others v. Abdus Sattar and 4 others (1). In that decision the power of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to declare a property of which the monthly rent exceeded Rs, 500 as big mansion was recognised but once it was declared as big mansion its disposal by auction as well as under Settlement Scheme No. 1 was held to be not in accordance with the law. In this background the Chief Settlement Commissioner declared not the whole Bakhshi Building as Big Mansion but specifically the portion occupied by the appellant and the others above it a big mansion and offered it for sale by auction. The appellant challenged this declaration alongwith Abdus Sattar and heirs of Muhammad ldrees by Constitutional Petition No, 941-R of 1971 but the same was dismissed in limine on 23-3-1972. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1971 SC 438 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' Abdus Sattar and the heirs of Muhammad Idrees sought further redress in respect of it but the appellant dissociated himself from further proceedings in the matter with the result that in the meantime an auction of this portion was held and the respondents emerged as the auction- purchasers.
5. ' The subsequent auction of this truncated building declared as big mansion was challenged by some of the occupants Fakt.Er Hussain and others. The main contention was that no auction was at all held and that the proceedings of auction and the purchase by respondents was fictitious. That constitutional petition was compromised though the application of the appellant for being impleaded in it as a party was pending. With the withdrawal of constitutional petition no subsisting right of appellant in the proceedings was recognised.
6. ' The further proceeding taken up by the co-petitioners of the appellant, namely, Abdus Sattar and the heirs of Muhammad Mites terminated in compromise in this Court on 21-2-1981 when the compromise was accepted by the Settlement Department. It was thereafter that the constitutional petition was instituted by the appellant on 22-3-1981 which was dismissed in limine on 29th of March, 1981 on the sole ground of laches.
7. ' The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant at all stages remained active in agitation against disposal of other or this portion of Bakhshi Building and at no Stage his conduct was such as to give the impression that he had reconciled himself with the disposal in favour of others or that he was not interested in transfer of this portion. In particular, the learned counsel for the appellant has drawn or attention to the KNCS form filed by him in 1960; the offer made by him alongwith Abdus Sattar for its purchase by negotiations at 55 years annual rent in August, 1960 after the building was declared as big mansion. The constitutional petition ' P No, 2255-R of 1963) was filed by the appellant alongwith Abdus Sattar challenging declaration of this building as big mansion. The appellant filed again an application for the transfer of shop on 30-7-1971. He filed a constitutional petition (W. P. No, 941 of 1971) against the declaration of this portion as a big mansion.
8. He thereafter agitated before the Settlement Authorities calling upon them not to confirm the auction. He also made an application for being joined in the constitutional petition (W. P. No, 978 of 1973) filed by Mr. Fakher Hussain and others challenging the auction itself. He repeated his application for transfer of this shop to him and was also made subject to all just exceptions party in Civil Appeal No, 65 of 1973 pending in this Court. When this appeal ended by a compromise on 21- 2-1981 the appellant filed a constitutional petition with respect to the same cause on 22nd of March, 1981.
9. ' The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that his challenge to the 4uction and declaration of this portion as a big mansion and its disposal by auction was based on many legal and factual backgrounds. For example, it was contended that the declaration with regard to the big mansion was arbitrary and capricious. The auction itself was fictitious. The appellant had offered higher price by negotiations. He was a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir and was in occupation of the property. The ultimate disposal of the property by the compromise entered into by the auction-purchaser and the occupants duly recognised and given effect to by Settlement Authoritie3 had the effect of nullifying the disposal of the property as a blg .Mansion. All the occupants except the appellant got under the final scheme of things the portions in their possession and the Settlement Department not only approved it but blessed such a disposal.. It was contrary to the provisions 9f Settlement Scheme No, III governing the disposal of big mansions.
10. ' From the history of the case as given out by the learned counsel for the appellant, we are left in no doubt that the appellant had been very vigilant and active till 22nd of March, 1972 when his constitutional petition (W. P. No, 941 of 1971) challenging the declaration of this portion of Bakhshi Building as a 'big mansion' was dismissed in litnine. His inactivity and half-hearted approach to the enforcement of his rights and the redress of his grievances thereafter is apparent. In the first place, he rendered the judgment qua him in Petition No, 941 of 1971, decided on 22nd of March, 1972 final by not agitating against it. His co-petitioners did agitate and ended up with some protection of their rights under the compromise. Further, the appellant did not at any subsequent stage seek his induction into the litigation again as an appellant but always as a respondent Such an impleading even if allowed as it was in Civil Appeal No, 65 of 1973, could be only for protecting his rights in so far as claim of other litigants was concerned but not with a view to enforcing his rights against others. The result was that when that appeal also ended by a compromise between the appellant and the contesting respondent. The appellant was left high and dry in a position to which he had reconciled on 27th of March, 1972 by not agitating against the dismissal of his constitutional petition. He had also not sought relief at any stage against the auction that was held after declaring this portion to be a big mansion. Lathes expressed in simplest terms, implies a failure to do something that a party should have done. In this case if the appellant wanted to re-agitate against the declaration of this portion of the building as a Big Mansion and its disposal as such he should not have reconciled himself to the decision dated 22-3-1979 given on his constitutional petition (941 of 1971). Further, laches as a concept of law, is not synonymous with delay alone but it signifies such delay as works to the disadvantage of another. In this case by not asserting his rights he permitted by his conduct the compromise between three sets of contestants on one side and the auction-purchaser on the other thereby concluding the dispute in its entirety. He by his inactivity and by not playing a positive role in the litigation denied himself the chances of any improvement resulting from subsequent litigation. His remaining as a respondent in the arena at his own request with no relief against auction purchaser could not be of any avail to him in the matter of seeking further redress.
11. ' We find that the judgment of the High Court is unexceptionable. The conduct of the appellant when considered in its entirety leaves no manner of doubt that his petition suffered from laches and was rightly dismissed. We find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.