1. HAMOUDUR RAHMAN, C. J.-This appeal, by special leave, arises out of a decision of the former High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore Seat, in a petition under Article 98 of the Constitution of 1962.
2. The dispute in this case related to a composite property consisting of a residential portion and shops bearing No. 4/4, Mian Channu. The residential portion was in the occupation of one Wali Muhammad, a claimant. A shop (No. 4/4-A) was in the occupation of the respondents 1 and 2 who arc brothers and claimants displaced persons. The latter were also in posses--sion of another residential premises bearing No. 2/41 Mian Channu for which both of them had submitted `CH'
3. Forms. The other shop (No. 4/4-B) was in the occupation of the appellant who is a local.
4. When settlement operations started, only the respondent Sharifuddin filed a `C S' Form for the transfer of the shop in his possession. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, however, treated the entire property as a shop and transferred it to the said Sharifuddin on the condition that he and his brother Muhammad Ibrahim surrender their claim in respect of the other residential house No. 2/41.
5. They agreed to this and transfer of the premises in dispute was made jointly to the respon--dent Sharifuddin and his brother Muhammad Ibrahim.
6. The present appellant, who is a local, it may be pointed out, had not filed any form for the transfer of ally portion of the premises in dispute but the transfer to the respondents was made after hearing the appellant as he was a person in possession. The present appellant filed no appeal against this order, because according to the law as it then stood, the appellant had no right as a local to claim either the residential portion or the shop.
7. On the 9th of September 1960, however, one Muhammad Akbar, who was not a person in possession of any portion of the premises in dispute, filed a miscellaneous application before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner as all informant alleging .Hat the respondent Sharifuddin had been illegally transferred two shops. The order of transfer, passed oil the 2nd of December 1959, in favour of the respondent was, therefore, sought to be cancelled. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, who treated this application as au application for review, refused to interfere.
8. It is only after this that the appellant jumped into tile field and even though lie was neither a party to the proceeding initiated by Muhammad Akbar before the Deputy Settler tell Commissioner nor a person who had applied for the transfer any portion of the property filed all appeal from this order the 15tH of November 1960, refusing to entertain the re petition. This appeal was also hopelessly time-barred. Never less, the Additional Settlement Commissioner, oil the 25 of January 1962, accepted the appeal aid se aside the original order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner passed oil the 2 of December 1959; to tile extent of one shop arid the residential portion. Even so, he did not transfer all, portion of tile premises to tile appellant. In fact, lie ordered that the shop in occupy of the appellant should be put to auction. He also ordered that if the respondent Sharifuddin was not entitled to the residential portion that too should be placed in the auction list.
9. He allowed Shriffudin to retain only the shop which was in his actual possession.
10. A revision filed by the respondents Sharifuddin and Ibrahim before the Settlement Commissioner was rejected on the 9th of April 1962. They then invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. A learned Single Judge allowed the application and set aside the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner on the 3rd of December 1965. This decision was upheld in letters patent appeal, but leave was granted by this Court on the 2nd of June 1966, to consider whether the orders of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and/or the Settlement Commissioner could be justified as having been made in the exercise of their jurisdiction to suo motu revise an order passed by a subordinate authority.
11. Learned counsel, appearing in support of this appeal, has rankly conceded that, on the date the Additional Settlement Commissioner passed the order in appeal, he had no suo motu power of revision by reason of the provisions of Ordinance No. 11 of 1962 [Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1962].
12. Learned counsel has, however, maintained that the order of the Settlement Commissioner passed on the 9th of April 1962 was all order passed in exercise of his suo motet jurisdiction under subsection (3) of section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compen--sation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 (Act No. XXVIII of 1958). The order itself does not indicate this, because, the operative portion of the order is to the following affect :-- "I find that the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner leas rightly passed order in respect of this property... . . . . . Rejected."
13. This does not show that tile Settlement Commissioner was applying his independent mind to the facts of tile case to consider whether he should interfere ill his sego motu jurisdiction. He merely affirmed the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, id it seems that at this stage it did not even occur to him that is was a case in which he could exercise his silo motu jurisdiction.
14. The provisions of Ordinance XIII of 1962 [Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)
15. (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 19621 which came into force oil tile I All of March 62, -ire not also of any assistance to tile learned counsel so far as this point is concerned, as then: is nothing oil the record to show that the records of the case were called for before the March 1962.
16. Apart from this we are not satisfied as to the locus standi of the appellant. We have come to the conclusion that he was not a person aggrieved who could have filed an appeal against the order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on the 15th of November 1960, refusing to review his previous order of the 2nd of December 1959.th nd As a local, he was not entitled to the transfer of even a shop and it is for this reason that the Additional Settlement Commis--sioner in January 1962, considered that the shop in his possession should be disposed of by auction. Now it is well-settled that a mere right to bid at an auction does not give a right to a person to intervene in any proceeding with regard to the transfer of any other property or another portion of the property not included in the portion ordered to be auctioned, particularly, where he has himself never claimed the transfer thereof at any earlier stage nor challenged the order of transfer itself nor was a party to the proceedings in which the order sought to be appealed against was made.
17. We are in the circumstances fully satisfied that the High Court rightly held that appellant had no locus standi to maintain the appeal which he had filed before the Additional Settlement Commissioner from an order refusing to review a previous order at the instance of some other person.
18. This appeal- must accordingly fail and is dismissed; but there will be no order as to costs.