1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-The dispute in this appeal relates to a portion of a plot bearing survey No. 673 J.
2. M. Situated in Jamshed Quarters, Karachi, which the appellant had occupied in 1950 and on which he has constructed a permanent building, wherein he is residing with his family. The respondents Nos. 5 and 6 are the other occupants of this plot, being in possession of separate portions thereof, and have put up their respective constructions. It seems that the total area of the plot is 2,222 square yards. The three portions, which stand separately divided in possession of the appellant and the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 measure 176 square yards, 790 square yards and 1,133 square yards respectively, and are separately numbered by the Municipal Corporation as J. M. 673/3, 673/2 and 673/1. On the 27th of November 1,959, the appellant had submitted an application under Settlement Scheme No. VI to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Karachi, for the transfer of his portion of the building site. This applica--petition was duly received by the said officer and entered in his register. The respondents Nos. 5 and 6 also applied for the transfer of the said building site, by submission of their applica--tions in C. H. Forms. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner reject--ed the claim of respondent No. 5, and transferred a portion of the plot to respondent No. 6. The application of the appellant was not at all considered, nor was he given any notice with regard to the applications of the respondents. The respondents went in appeal to the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commis--sioner, Karachi, and then finally a revision was filed before the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Karachi, without making the appellant a party either to the appeal or to the revision. The Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, by his order dated the 11th of August 1960, divided the plot into two portions and transferred one portion each to respondents Nos. 5 and 6 according to their respective possessions. In the result, the portion in possession of the appellant was also purported to be transferred to respondent No. 5. The application of the appellant submitted under Settlement Scheme No. VI was, therefore, rejected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on the 19th of December 1960, without giving him any notice.
3. The short ground given for rejection was that the building site of the appellant bearing No. J. M. 673 was a building and not a plot. No intimation was sent to the appellant about the rejection of his application, and he continued to make representations to the Settlement authorities for action on his applications. Subsequently, respondent No. 5 served a notice on the appellant to vacate the portion of the plot in his possession, claiming that he was its transferee. This led the appellant to make an application to the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner on the 20th of June 1962; praying once again for early disposal of his application for transfer of the plot. The Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Karachi, forwarded this application to the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (respondent No. 4) for disposal. The appellant's file in the office of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was traced on the 16th of March 1963, on which date a detailed report was sent to the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Karachi, with the conclusion that the appellant's application had already been rejected on the 19th of December 1960. On receipt of this report, the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, directed the appellant to file an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner against the order of the rejection of his application, and also made a direction that "the Additional Settlement Commissioner shall give a chance to the applicant by condoning the delay that occurs in the filing of the appeal". The appeal, which was then filed by the appellant under section 19 (b) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, before the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, was dismissed by that officer by his order dated the 12th of December 1963, on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to .Hear the appeal, as a P. T. D. Had since been issued to respondent No. 5 for the land in dispute, by an order of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner. Nonethe--less, he directed the appellant to make an application under rule 7 of the Permanent Transfer Rules, 1961 for the cancellation of the P. T. D. Issued to respondent No. 5 iii this behalf. The appellant followed this direction, and moved an application to respondent No. 3 under rule 7 aforesaid. This application was dismissed on the 25th of August 1964, on the ground that as the transfer had been made by the Settlement Commissioner, he, i.e., the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, could not pass any order to re-open the case, and further that as rule 7 has since been amended, taking away his power in the matter, he was no longer seized of jurisdiction to deal with it. The appellant challenged this order in a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner, Karachi. The learned Settlement Commissioner referred the case on the 19th of September 1964, to the Chief Settlement Commissioner of Pakistan for the grant of relief to the appellant, as he found sufficient merit in his case. The Chief Settlement Commissioner discarded this recommenda--petition and dismissed the appellant's application on the 3rd October 1964, by a summary order without hearing the appellant. The appellant then moved the High Court in writ jurisdiction by a Writ Petition No. 691 of 1964 in challenge of orders that had been made against him by the Settlement authorities, culminating in the final order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated the 3rd of October 1964, referred to above. The writ petition was filed on the 31st- of October 1964, almost within less than a month of the final order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated the 3rd of October 1964. A Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the appellant's writ petition, observing at the same time that the rejection of the appellant's claim by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on .The 19th of December 1960, did not do him justice. The reason for dismissing the writ petition was stated as follows :- '
4. "We have heard the counsel for the parties, and while we are conscious .Of the fact that the rejection of the petitioner's claim on the 19th of December 1960, did not co him justice, the claim might have been rejected, but it could not have been rejected upon the ground that the property in question was a building and not a plot. It is true that there was a construction but in so far as it was eventually decided to transfer it as an open plot, in fairness the petitioner's claim should also have been taken into account: However, we do not think we can help him now. His form was rejected on the 19th of December 1960, and we have no reason to believe that he did not receive notice of this rejection. That was the procedure followed all along. Indeed, the petitioner himself has filed a certified copy of this order dated the 19th of December 1960, which copy he applied for as far back as the 30th of August 1961. He obtained this copy on the 17th of October 1961, but he filed no appeal.
5. It was for the first time, as pointed out by the Additional Settlement Commissioner that on the 20th of June 1962, he- filed a miscellaneous application with regard to his form. Mr. Naseem Rizvi, urged before us that before making this application of 20th of June 1962, the petitioner had been making applications after applications for the consideration of his form. There is nothing on record to establish this assertion. On the contrary, considering that the petitioner himself obtained a certified copy of this order in October 1961, there would have been no further need for him to go on making miscellaneous applications. His remedy was by way of appeal. The petitioner did not file any appeal, and allowed the matter to rest. This plot was, as has been stated, disposed of in two equal parts to the two respondents. This was confirmed by the Settlement Commissioner on the 11th of August 1960. The parties have paid the price and permanent documents have been given to them.
6. We do not think we would be justified in entertaining this challenge so late. . The petition, therefore, must be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was not alert and has taken recourse to these proceedings after considerable lapse of time."
7. It would be clear from the above excerpt from the order of the High Court that the appellant's writ petition was dismissed merely on the ground of laches. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the 'learned Judges were wrongly influenced by the consideration that the appellant knew about the order dated the 19th of December 1960, rejecting his application for transfer, as he had applied for a copy of the same by an application to the Copying Department on the 30th of August 1961, which was issued to him on the 17th of October 1961. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the original record shows that the application for the copy was, in fact, made by respondent No. 5 and not by the appellant, and it was the former who had supplied the department with a photostat copy of that order. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the original record shows that respondent No. 5 was in possession of 790 square yards and that respondent No. 6 was in possession of 1,133 square yards, and that both of them were transferred the areas in their respective possession, which totalled 2,040 square yards, leaving a balance of 180 square yards which was in possession of the appellant and which had not been dispos--ed of in favour of either of the respondents. However, we are not at the moment concerned with the merits of the appellant's case, because the only point before us is whether the High Court is right in declining relief to the appellant on the ground of laches. It seems to us that the learned Judges have ignored two salient factors in this behalf. The first is that on the 12th of September 1963, the Settlement Commissioner had, on the report of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, directed that the appeal of the appellant be heard in case he files one against the order dated the 19th of December 1960, rejecting his claim for transfer, and that the delay, that had occurred, should be condoned. The appeal, which was competently filed by the appellant, was not disposed of by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on merits, but was dismissed, as, according to him, he did not possess the jurisdiction to deal with it. He had directed the appellant to seek his 'remedy under rule 7. Of the Permanent Transfer Rules. The appellant then followed that course. The Settlement Commis--sioner found that the appellant had a just cause for transfer of the plot in his favour, and recommended favourable action by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, but the latter, without giving a chance to the appellant, refused to give him any relief, and dismissed his application on the 3rd of October 1964. Within less than a month of that order, the appellant moved the High Court in writ jurisdiction. In these circumstances, it is clear that the appellant continued pursue his remedies diligently with the Settlement Department, and he cannot be held guilty of any laches in coming to the High Court where he sought his remedy soon after the final rejection of his claim by the Settlement authorities.