1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.-- These appeals, by special leave, arise from the common judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 19th of May, 1975, by which Writ Petitions Nos. 276-R of 1974 and 277-R of 1974, were allowed with costs.
2. Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the High Court was in error in quashing the order of the Additional Settlement Commis--sioner dated the 2nd of January, 1974, as having been passed without lawful authority.
3. In both the appeals the dispute relates to the transfer of Shops Nos. 58/2641 and 273/2181 situate respectively in the Main Bazar and Ghallah Mandi of Chunian. As none of the occupants had submitted the forms for the transfer of these shops, both of them were auctioned on 4th February, 1966, for Rs.21,000 and Rs.11,000 respectively in favour of Mst. Zamani, but she failed to pay the price.
4. The auction was cancelled and the shops were resumed after due service of notice. They were again auctioned for Rs.1,500 each on 15th of May, 1971, against their individual reserve price of Rs.1,440 in favour of Muhammad Taqi who was the only bidder. The bids for these shops were confirmed on 24th of May, 1971, and a P.T.D. Was issued on 17th of February. 1972.
5. Shop No.58/2641 was shown in the bid-sheet to be in the occupation of Bashir Ahmad. No bid- sheet for Shop No.273/2181 was field, but in the auction list it was shown to be in the occupation of Vira Brothers. Further in accordance with the auction list these shops were not shown in 'Chunian' but under the heading of shops at "Raja Jang", a different place. According to the auction programme the shops at Raja Jang were to be auctioned at Qasur on 14th of May, 1971, while the houses in Chunian were to be auctioned at Pattoki on 15th of May, 1971. Objections to the auction list were to be submitted by 10th of May, 1971.
6. Nazir Ahmad, the appellant in Civil Appeal No.12 of 1978, and Muhammad Tufail, the appellant in Civil Appeal No.13 of 1978, claiming to be in possession of Shops Nos. 58/2641 and 273/2181 respectively filed separate appeals for setting aside the auction as, according to them, their claim forms for the transfer of these shops under Settlement Scheme NO.VII were still pending for adjudication. By order dated 15th of May, 1972, the Additional Settlement Commissioner allowed the appeals while noticing the fact that the respondent was not impleaded in these appeals and remanded the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for deciding the matter afresh after giving notice to the respondents. The respondent went in revision against this order and the Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 7th of December, 1972, set aside the orders of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and remanded the cases to him for fresh decision after hearing the respondent.
7. There was also a direction to the Additional Settlement Commis--sioner for the verification of the fact as to whether the appellants had, in fact, filed the forms for the transfer of the shops. These matters were heard as revisions in view of the amendment in the law as the provision for appeals was taken away. The Settlement Commissioner who was authorised to hear the revisions was also empowered to transfer them to the Additional Settlement Commissioner. Accordingly, these revisions were transferred to the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, who held that none of the appellants had filed any form for the transfer of the shops in question under Settlement Scheme No. VIII "or that any form was pending decision" and dismissed the revision petition. By the same order he also cancelled the auction of the shops in favour of the respondents on the ground that the auction had been made under a "wrong description", that is, in the auction list the location of the shops was shown at Raja Jang instead of Chunian. The respondent, accordingly, agitated against the cancel--lation of the auction in Writ Petitions Nos. 276-R of 1974 and 277-R of 1974, and succeeded.
8. The High Court examined the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and so also the Permanent Transfer Deed and came to the conclusion that the shop was actually auctioned at Pattoki on 15th of May, 1971, as that place was mentioned in Permanent Transfer Deed. Accordingly, it drew the conclusion that this auction list was corrected before the actual auction of these shops as for that matter they were put to auction the next day at Pattoki otherwise the auction would have been held at Raja Jang a day earlier. The High Court further held that the only matter referred on remand to the Additional Settlement Commissioner was the verification of the fact as to whether the appellants had filed necessary forms for the transfer of the property under Settlement Scheme No.VIII without disturbing the auction. The Additional Settlement Commissioner, accordingly, went beyond the scope of the remand order by suo motu cancelling the auction after having held that the appellants had not filed any forms as by that finding he exhausted his revisional jurisdiction and could not order so.
9. The first question which arises for consideration is whether the appellants had any locus standi to challenge the auction in favour of the contesting respondent Muhammad Taqi. It is crystal clear from the bid-sheet and the auction list that the occupants of the shops at the the of auction were not the present appellants, but Bashir Ahmad and, Vira Brothers although the claim of both the appellants was that they were in possession of their respective shops since partition. No document was produced before the Settlement Commissioner about the factum of their possession before the date of auction of the shops. Those documents which are on the record show their possession much after the date of auction. It is surprising that if they were in possession why were their names not mentioned in the registers maintained by the Evacuee or the Rehabilitation Department.
10. Equally I see no reason why they would not have applied for the transfer of these shops after the introduction of Settlement Scheme No.VIII in September, 1966, or at such the when they had become eligible as locals for the transfer of these shops under this Scheme. Moreover, the question of their possession was not in issue before the Settlement authorities and all that they claimed was that they had filed the forms for the transfer of these shops, which fact was found to be incorrect.
11. For this reason there was also no specific finding as to whether they were in possession on the date when the property was auctioned. What obviously appears to us is that they had obtained possession subsequent to the auction and for that reason had not objected to the auction of the shops when such objections were invited. If at all they were interested to bid they would have objected to the property being shown in the auction list at Raja Jang when, in fact, the shops were located at Chunian.
12. Again they also invoked the jurisdiction of the Additional Settlement Commissioner much after the confirmation of the auction which fact also goes to show that they had subsequently acquired an interest in the shops and not before. In this view of the matter, their entitlement to challenge the auction was not established on record, and for that reason they had no locus standi to challenge the legality of the auction before a Settlement authority and to seek the transfer of the shops in their favour when they were not available for disposal.
13. In Sh. Barkat Ali v. Additional Settlement Commissioner and 2 others, 1972 SCMR 293, it was held that where a person had no entitlement to the transfer of the house, he had no locus standi to challenge its transfer in favour of the claimant displaced person. In ,Abdur Rashid v. Abdul Ali and another, 1972 SCMR 391, this principle was again stated that where a person who was not an applicant for the transfer of a particular evacuee property had no locus standi to challenge its disposal by public auction. Again in Ahmad Jamal v. Nazir Ahmad Khan and others 1975 SCMR 24, it was pointed out that it is the entitlement to the transfer of the shop which gives locus standi to object to its transfer to the other person. In this connection reference may also be made to Muhammad Ibrahim v. Settlement Commis--sioner, 1974 SCMR 299.
14. The High Court has also correctly held that as the auction was held at Pattoki on the 15th of May, 1971, necessarily, therefore, the list must have been corrected as otherwise it should have taken place a day earlier and that to at Qasur. The counsel for the appellants was at pains to convince us that there was no rectification of the place and the date of auction. But apart from referring us to the un-amended auction list no other convincing material was placed on record from which we could take a contrary view. This exercise was also in our view, uncalled for as no case was made out by any one of the appellants that he was misled and could not bid because of an error in the date of auction and location of the shops in the auction list and the rectification not having been publicised. The Additional Settlement Commissioner, accordingly, acted beyond the scope of the remand order in suo motu setting aside the auction when in the revisional order the auction was not touched.
15. For all these reasons, we are of the view that the P.T.D. Issued in favour of respondent Muhammad Taqi was issued in the proper exercise of the authority of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, and, accordingly, the transfer was not open to judicial scrutiny. The result is that both the appeals are dismissed, but as in both of them common questions of law and fact are involved we will only allow costs of one appeal to be shared proportionately by the appellants.