1. DORAB PATEL, J.--The dispute in these three petitions relate to three shops in Kohat which are evacuee property. After Settlement operations began, the shops were put up for auction on 8-8- 1960, as no claims were filed by claimants/ displaced persons. As the auctions were unsuccessful, the Settlement Department tried to dispose of the shops by negotiations and this led to a round of litigation in the Settlement Department and in the High Court. The details of this protracted litigation are not relevant and it is sufficient to state that Mr. Ansari relied on the order of the Settlement Commissioner, dated 13-3-1965 directing the shops to be put up for a fresh auction.
2. This order was challenged in the High Court in writ petitions, but it is common ground between the learned counsel that despite the protracted litigation in the High Court this order of the Settlement Commissioner was not set aside. Therefore, according to Mr, Ansari, it became final, and binding on the respondents. However, although this order was not set aside no steps whatever were taken between 1973 and 1976 to implement it. In March, 1976, however, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner put up the case to the Additional Settlement Commissioner, who directed that the fresh auction should be held on the 15th of June, 1976. This order was upheld in a revision, but meanwhile the occupants of the shops had filed the L.S. Forms under Settlement Scheme No. VIII as it stood then. They were aggrieved by these orders of the Settlement authorities directing the auction of the shops and for the purpose of these petitions it is sufficient to state that they filed writ petitions in the Peshawar High Court which were contested by the petitioners.
3. The contention of the petitioners was that the shops were not available "within the meaning of Settlement Scheme No. VIII" as held by the Settlement authorities. They also denied the claim of the private respondents in these petitions to be in possession of the shops; and their further contention was that the Settlement Commissioner's order of 13-3-1965 had become final. All these contentions were rejected by the learned Judge, who heard the writ petitions. And, in allowing the writ petitions, he observed, inter alia: "It is with advantage to mention here that the contest in this case is one between person who by virtue of coming into force of Settlement Scheme No. VIII has acquired a legal right in the property and a person who at the most will be a mere bidder in the auction. It is a settled law now that a potential bidder can neither compete with a person who has acquired a vested right nor can compel the authority to bring the properties to auction. This being a discretionary relief, I am, therefore, not inclined to exercise it in favour of a person who has no vested right in the property."
4. Accordingly, as the writ petitions were allowed, the petitioners have filed these petitions for leave.
5. Mr. Ansari vehemently submitted that the shops were not available property within the meaning of Settlement Scheme No. VIII and that the Settlement Commissioner's order, of 17-3-1965 had become final. But, even on the assumption that this order had become final, we were not referred to any evidence whatever to show that it had been implemented when the private respondents filed their C.S. Forms. Therefore, the obvious question for consideration is whether there is any error in the finding of the learned Judge that the petitioners had no locus atandi to contest the petitions.
6. The observations of the learned Judge which we quoted above are supported by judgments of this Court in Abdul Hamid Khan v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner PLD 1966 SC 719, and in Abdul Hamid Khan v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner 1971 SCMR 711, to which we were referred by Mr. Sardar Khan. Therefore, it is not necessary to examine the other contentions of Mr. Ansari.
7. The petitions are without merit and are dismissed.