1. ZAFAR HUSSIAN MIRZA, J.--This petition for special leave to appeal has been brought to challenge the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 8-2-1982 whereby the Constitutional Petition filed by the petitioner Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba was dismissed.
2. The dispute pertains to Flat No: 30/A in a building known as The Mall Mansion situate at The Mall, Lahore. The said Mall Mansion is a part of a big Mansion known as "The Mall Mansions" which comprised many flats on the first floor and shops on the second floor. The case of the petitioner was that the left wing of the Mall Mansions was put to auction by the Chief Settlement Commissioner as a big Mansion in favour of Muhammad Amin Paracha. The auction /purchaser is said, however, to have withdrawn from the auction and subsequently Agha Ahmed Raza, the then Settlement Commissioner, managed to have the property transferred to himself. Accordingly by an order dated 31-8-1960 passed by Mr. Aftab Ahmed, the then Settlement Commissioner (Industries) approved the association of Agha Ahmed Raza with his sister Mst. Naeema Khanum (respondent No. 4) and others for the transfer of different portions of the said big Mansion. It is alleged by the petitioner, that Mst. Naeema Khanum was transferred the flat in dispute which was in possession of the petitioner. It appears that the PTO was issued in favour of Mst. Naeema Khanum on 15-9-1960 but the petitioner claims that he was not aware of the fact. The PTO was followed by a PTD dated 14-1-1965 (which is on the printed record of this petition at page 3 paper book part II). However, after the issuance of PTO Mst. Naeema Khanum filed an ejectment application against one A.K.
3. Mumtaz who was the occupant of half of the flat in dispute. It is alleged by the petitioner that during the pendency of the ejectment proceedings he came to know that the transfer of the flat was obtained by fraud and sought to obtain certified copies of the order of transfer, but the copies were not supplied as the record had been called away by the Ministry of Rehabilitation. The petitioner then made an application to the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 27-3-1974 for cancellation of the transfer in favour of Agha Ahmed Raza and others on the ground that as the auction-purchaser had withdrawn from the auction, the property should have been put to auction under Settlement Scheme No. III and could not have been transferred to the said transferees by negotiation.
4. The Central Government had also ordered an inquiry in respect of the transfer of the big Mansion.
5. On the application of the petitioner the Chief Settlement Commissioner passed an order on 2-4- 1974 and forwarded the matter to the Settlement Commissioner (Industries) for inquiry as to in what circumstances Amin Paracha had withdrawn from the auction and the property was transferred to Ahmad Raza.
6. The case of the petitioner so far as his right to transfer of the property in question is concerned as disclosed in the Constitutional Petition was that he was occupant of the flat as an allottee since before this transfer and consequently upon a failure of the auction proceedings he was entitled to its transfer on the basis of his possession. As the inquiry ordered by the Chief Settlement Commissioner did not make any progress for want of record which was said to have been lost in the office of the Central Ministry of Rehabilitation, the petitioner filed the Constitutional Petition before the High Court praying that the transfer in favour of Mst. Naeema Khanum be declared to be without lawful authority and in the alternative prayed that the Chief Settlement Commissioner be directed to expedite the inquiry.
7. The learned Judge in the High Court held that the petitioner was not an aggrieved person and had no locus standi to claim the property in dispute, his position being that of an informer. It was additionally held that the petitioner was not entitled to the discretionary relief in the constitutional jurisdiction for the reason that he appeared as a counsel for A.K. Mumtaz in the ejectment proceedings in respect of the same property making no attempt to intervene as a party and filed the Constitutional Petition after losing the battle in those proceedings. There was, therefore, a clear case of laches on the part of the petitioner in losing about 20 years in litigating on behalf of A.K.
8. Mumtaz in the proceedings arising out of the ejectment order.
9. In his submission before us the petitioner stated that the property in dispute was originally in possession of A.K. Mumtaz and he came into its possession as a licencee of A. K. Mumtaz.
10. According to him in 1957 the property was allotted in favour of A.K. Mumtaz and the petitioner.
11. However, the petitioner was unable to satisfy us with any evidence in support of the allotment in his favour. The main basis of the case of the petitioner, as stated by him before us, was the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner on his application dated 2-4-1974 which is in the following terms:- "In what circumstances the auction-purchaser withdrew from the auction and it was transferred to Agha Ahmed Raza in what circumstances?
12. (2)P.T.Ds. Have not been issued.
13. (3)To be heard S.C. Industries.
14. (Sd.) M. Aslam Avais, C. S. C."
15. Apparently this order proceeded on the allegations contained in the petitioner's application in which he had alleged that Muhammad Amin the auction-purchaser had withdrawn from the auction and obtained refund of his security deposit, whereafter "the property was independently transferred to more than 10 independent persons and separate PTDs were issued to them independently which was absolutely illegal and without the exercise of the lawful authority." The respondent has placed on record the PTD issued in favour of Mst. Naeema Khanum, which clearly mentions the property as a big Mansion which was disposed of by auction under the provisions of Settlement Scheme No. III on the basis of association with Muhammad Amin Paracha who had offered the bid of Rs. 7,00,000 which was accepted by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 7-7-1959. This evidence, therefore, prima facie contradicts the allegations of the petitioner on the basis of which the Chief Settlement Commissioner's preliminary order was passed on which reliance is being placed.
16. The petitioner urges that as there is an inquiry pending in pursuance of the aforesaid order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner on his application, he had locus standi to file the Constitutional Petition. According to him the inquiry is still pending un-disposed. He has, however, admitted that he did not apply for transfer before the property was transferred to the respondent and his plea is that he could not do so as the property was a big Mansion. We are unable to see any forces in the contention that merely because an inquiry is pending on the petitioner's application, he would be clothed with a right to transfer and thereby acquire locus standi to file the Constitutional Petition to challenge the transfer in favour of the respondent. In fact if an inquiry is pending before the relevant departmental authority on the petitioner's application, it would be improper for the Court to take over the matter and adjudicate the same dispute in the constitutional jurisdiction.
17. Be that as it may the petitioner has not met the other ground on which his Constitutional Petition was dismissed by the High Court. Namely, that he was guilty of laches in challenging the order of transfer after the lapse of about 16/17 years, although he was fully aware of the same in that he was contesting the ejectment proceedings filed the transferee against A.K. Mumtaz whom the petitioner represented as a counsel.
18. After hearing the counsel at length we find no substance in this petition and accordingly dismiss the same.