The facts necessary for the disposal of this Constitution petition are that a plot measuring 9 Marlas and 129 sq. Ft. Out of Khasra No.1231 situated in Canal Park, Lahore was auctioned by the Settlement Department on 13-8-1960 and Mst. Aziz Akhtar petitioner and Mst. Khurshid Begum gave the highest bid which was confirmed by the ,Auction Committee on 26-10-1960. Mst. Khurshid Begum later on surrendered her rights in favour of the petitioner through an agreement of association. The Settlement Department then issued P. T.O. In favour of the petitioner on 27-5-1961. The petitioner was issued PTD on 31-7-1965 as then the transfer price and settlement fee were paid. The petitioner, it appears, initiated proceedings of ejectment against Iftikhar Ahmad Rao, respondent No.4, who then took up the stand that he was in possession of the plot in dispute in the capacity of the transferee from the Settlement Department. The transfer order relied upon by respondent No.4 is dated 5-6-19 7 3. It may be noted here that this order is a conditional order of transfer passed in favour of respondent No.4. The condition attached reads as under:- "This order shall be considered as non-existent if the plot is found disposed of in favour of any person."
The petitioner, it is asserted, after making enquiries from the Settlement Department, submitted an application requesting the Settlement Authorities to treat the order of transfer dated 5-6-1973 and documents of transfer issued to respondent No.4 as non-existent. On the application, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lahore submitted report dated 27-1-19P1 to the Settlement Commissioner. Lahore. In this report the assertions, that the petitioner was valid transferee through auction of the plot in question and that the same property was illegally and wrongly transferred vide order dated 5-6-1973 to Iftikhar Ahmad Rao, were accepted. It was reported that this was, a case of double disposal of the plot in question. The petitioner was, however, advised vide Memo No.48-DSC/V/S-81 dated 8-2-1981 to move the competent Court of law as the Settlement Authorities having become functus officio cannot afford any relief to the petitioner on account of the repeal of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation; Act, 1958. Mst. Aziz Akhtar, petitioner, thereafter invoked Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present Constitution petition. In order to complete the factual history, it may be added that a part of the plot in question was assertedly purchased by Muhammad Sadiq, respondent No.5 from Iftikhar .Ahmad Rao, respondent No.4 and so on his application, he was impleaded as a respondent.
2. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for Iftikhar Ahmad Rao and Muhammad 1--idiq, respondents Nos.4 and 5. None has entered appearance on behalf of tire Settlement Authorities, respondents No.l to 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of transfer obtained by Iftikhar Ahmad Rao respondent No.4 is to be treated as non- existent in view of the condition attached in that order itself as the transfer obtained through auction by the petitioner stands accepted and confirmed by the Settlement Authorities. The respondents Nos.4 and 5 admittedly have not till date challenged the said transfer. Learned counsel argued that the respondents in these circumstances have no locus stand to oppose this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents in reply argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed on account of laches and that interference in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction i: not called for as lftikhar Ahmad Rao, respondent No.4 sold a part of the plot in question to Muhammad Sadiq, respondent No.5, who after obtaining sanction from the Municipal Authorities, has already constructed a house thereon. Learned counsel for the petitioner controverted these pleas with the further objection that such factual pleas could be urged if the respondents had filed a written statement. Neither respondent No-4 nor respondent No.5 has filed written statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner added that the petition does not suffer from laches as the petitioner moved the Settlement Authorities as soon as Iftikhar Ahmad Rao asserted in the ejectment proceedings that he is occupying the plot in question in the capacity of a transferee. It was submitted that had the petitioner been given proper notice of these objections she would have placed on record the relevant documents to show that the petitioner has not been sleeping over her rights. There is force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show as to when construction, if any, was raised on the plot in question. Be that as it may, the respondents cannot claim rights in the plot in question on the basis of the order dated 5-6-1973 as the said order became non-existent as soon as it was shown that the plot in dispute stands already transferred to some one else. Had the respondents made prudent inquiry, they would have immediately known that the plot in question stands already transferred permanently in favour of the A petitioner. The PTO was issued in favour of the petitioner on 27-5-1961 and after receiving the transfer price and settlement fee, PTD was also issued in favour of the petitioner on 31-7-1965. In these circumstances, no valid claim can be made by the respondents Nos.4 and 5 on the plot in question on the basis of the transfer orders obtained by them.
4.In this view of the matter, there is no alternate but to hold that the order dated 5-6-1973 and the transfer documents issued pursuant thereto to respondent No.4 are without lawful authority and I hence of no legal effect. Order accordingly. The Constitution petition is accepted with no order as to cost.