This Writ- Petition calls in question an order, dated 23-5-1973 (Annexure 'P') of the learned Settlement Commissioner, Bahawalpur, whereby the petitioner's Revision Petition was dismissed.
2. The dispute relates to transfer of shop No. 835, Giri Ganj Bazar, Bahawalpur, which the petitioner had purchased in auction in 1960 for a. Sum of Rs.8,200. It was, however, resumed on 13-11-1967 for his default in making payment; was re-auctioned on 25-11-1967, but owing to the inadequacy of the bid, was ultimately transferred through negotiations to the present respondent, or for that matter, his predecessor, vide P.T.D., dated 2-7-1969.
3. The petitioner preferred an appeal on 15-10-1969 against the issuance of the said P.T.D. Pointing out that he had received intimation about it only on 3-10-1969 and further that its resumption, dated 13-11-1967 was ordered behind his back. He offered to clear the arrears and prayed for its restoration. The appeal was resisted, inter alia, on the ground of limitation maintaining that he had full knowledge of the auction much earlier than 3-10-1969 as he had in his application, dated 28- 12-1967, prayed for the restoration of the shop on the reduced reserved price for which it was transferred to the respondent. Consequently the appeal as also the Revision failed.
4. The main contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner were, firstly that the order of resumption had been passed without his notice and secondly that it could not be legally passed as the shop still being in his possession it had to be restored to him on his offer to make the payment. Reliance was placed on his own applications Annexures 'A', 'B' and 'C' etc. Wherein allegedly he had been asking the department all over to adjust the amount against his Compensation Book at the rate of 70 per cent rather than 40 per cent and also issue him the P.T.D. His further case was that after his C.B's. Adjustment made on 20-9-1967 (R.1) he had deposited the residue of Rs.2,188 on 18-1-1968 and a further sum of Rs.29 on 28-8-1968, on receipt of notice of demand, dated 27-2-1968. Counsel emphasised that if the Department had willingly accepted the deposit so late as 1968 even by issuing a demand notice for the balance of Rs.29, there was no occasion to have taken away the shop from him by resuming it a couple of months earlier, that is on 13-11-1967. He stressed that its re-auction on 25-11-1967 was ineffective as, in law, he could pay quarterly instalments during three years counting from 20-9-1967 when his C.B. Was finally adjusted. He cited some authorities in support of this view.
5. In reply it was urged that the application for restoration of the shop made on 28-12-1967 was barred by time inasmuch as the petitioner knew of the resumption taking place on 13-11-1967. The Settlement Courts accepted this contention relying basically upon the petitioner's own application referred to above, in which he had complained of the impugned resumption.
6. As to the absence of notice, the petitioner could not deny knowledge of the resumption, dated 13-11-1967. It was evidenced from his own application as aforesaid in the impugned order. The contention that he was not formally served with it, would lose its force because of his having acquired knowledge thereabout somehow. Besides, it does not appear to have been his case before the Settlement Courts that he had no notice of the resumption. Instead quite naively, he agreed to pay the reduced reserved price for its restoration. He is, therefore, precluded to take it up now in writ. Even otherwise, the order of resumption could have been assailed within fifteen days by means of an appeal under section 19 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)
Act, 1958, and additionally the restoration of the shop could have been sought within thirty days as allowed under Paragraph 3-A, Chapter II, Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The remedy of appeals was admittedly not availed whilst the application ostensibly under Paragraph 3-A (ibid) was made some 15 days beyond the terminal date without asking for condonation which perhaps was even not permissible. Still more formidable hurdle in the petitioner's way was the factum of re-auction, dated 25-11-1967, which even though not approved till then, precluded restoration of the shop in terms of the aforesaid Paragraph 3-A. In other words, the restoration was subject to the rider of re- auction of the property. Thus, failure to avail appeal and asking for restoration beyond the prescribed time, made the petitioner's case entirely unentertainable. The conclusion drawn by the Courts below in this behalf does not seem to be exceptionable.
7. The second ground urged in the Writ Petition equally seems to be unavailing. The long period of three years for making payments in instalments was claimed to be available to the petitioner from 20-9-1967 when his Compensation Book was last adjusted vide the reverse side of the auction list R.1. Such a moratorium was no more available as Paragraph 23 of the Schedule (ibid) allowing payments in 12 quarterly instalments was deleted in 1964. For this simple reason, no assistance could be taken even from Paragraph 24 of the same Schedule particularly because no order was shown whereby "the benefit of payment by instalments has been granted" to the petitioner. Even of this mode of payment was available to him initially, it had been taken away by the amendment in the Schedule. He could not insist for it. Being only a procedural matter, it created no vested right in his favour under section 6 of the General Clauses Act. He was bound to'-make payment within the time allowed to him in the notice of demand. On his own showing, he delayed payment and that is why the resumption was ordered and later perhaps on awareness of losing the shop, he besought its restoration by offering the reduced price. It was too late in the day. Indeed there, was no authority vested in the Settlement officers to order restoration of the shop to him. Much has been said about the Department receiving payment from the petitioner as late as 1968. No order was placed on the file to show if any competent authority had asked for the deposit being conscious of the earlier orders of resumption as also re-auction. Those were orders which the petitioner himself knew and had been even making efforts to set them at naught. It was queer on his part too, in the circumstances, to tender payments to some official of the Department despite knowing that he had not availed the appeal and had even failed in his application under Paragraph 3-A. He could not take benefit from any order of some official with whom he might be in league for manipulating it for himself.
8. Last but not the least was the objection that the Writ Petition having been filed on 16-12-1973 beyond six months of the impugned order, dated 23-5-1973, was hit by laches. Settlement Authority etc. v. Mst. Akhtar Sultana PLD 1976 SC 410 was relied upon. This plea itself suffices to refuse the relief through the extraordinary remedy.
9. For all these reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs.