' Building site measuring 4 Marlas and 21 sq. Ft. Situate in Khasra No,1774 at Kacha Hall Road, Lahore was in possession of the petitioner whereon the petitioner has constructed a residential house and a workshop. On the basis of the petitioner's Form No,1190-1192 filed under Settlement Scheme No,VI, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lahore transferred the said plot to the petitioner on 14-6- 1960. This plot however was resumed vide order dated 20-3-1968 for non-payment of the transfer price. Subsequently the petitioner applied for transfer of the building site under Settlement Scheme No,VIII in 1971 at S. No, 1730 and under the revised Scheme on 12-10-1973 vide B.S. Form No, 543 for the transfer of the whole plot measuring 8 Marlas and 66 Sq. Ft. Including the plot measuring 4 Marlas and 21 Sq. Ft. Which had been resumed from the petitioner. B.S. Form dated 13-1-1971 was rejected on 14-6-1974 but the Form filed under R.S.S. VIII, dated 12-10-1973, however remained undisposed of. Subsequently this plot was initially put to auction but this auction was not confirmed and it was again put to auction on 30-3-1978 and the same was purchased by respondent No,3 in this writ petition. Auction was confirmed on 24-5-1980 and revision filed alongwith this auction was dismissed on 24-2-1981 by respondent No,2.
2. In this Constitutional petition, the petitioner who is a displaced person has challenged the orders of resumption of the plot dated 20-3-1968, the order of rejection of the B.S. Form dated 14-6-1974 and the auction proceedings held on 30-3-1978, confirmed on 24-5-1980 and the order of dismissal of revision dated 24-2-1981.
3. Ch. Inayat Ullah Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has appeared on behalf of petitioner and has raised the following contentions:--
(i) that the order of resumption has been passed against the petitioner without issuing of any show-cause notice and also without service of any notice for payment of the dues in alleged default whereof the plot was resumed, therefore, the resumption order is void ab initio;
(ii) that the order of rejection of the B.S. Form filed by the petitioner dated 14-6-1974 is illegal inasmuch as the same has been passed without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and is also without any lawful basis and justification;
(iii) that without disposal of the Form for transfer of the plot filed under the Revised Settlement Scheme No,VIII which Form was submitted on 12-10-1973 which has not been disposed of and the plot in question could not have been put to auction inasmuch as the petitioner is entitled to the transfer of the plot in question on the basis of possession and raising of construction thereon.
Learned counsel has relied on paragraph (7) (i) of the Settlement Scheme No,VIII referred to above in support of his contentions;
(iv) that the order of dismissal of revision petition suffers from the same infirmity.
4. As against the above arguments, addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Abdul Majid Khan, Advocate has argued as follows:--
(i) that the order of resumption was passed against the petitioner as back as on 20-3-1968 and show-cause notice was issued to him on 2-10-1967 which was received by him on 9-10-1967 and this order was never challenged by the petitioner up to the time when the evacuee laws were repealed and consequently the order of resumption having become final prior to the repeal of evacuee laws cannot be challenged in writ;
(ii) that the order of rejection of the Form filed by the petitioner on 14-6-1974 was also not challenged within a reasonable time and in a mala fide manner, two Forms were filed, one of which is still pending but the petitioner having accepted the order of rejection of the previous Form, is not entitled to get the transfer of property under the reconstituted Settlement Scheme No,VIII on the basis of his Form submitted on 12-10-1973. Learned counsel, however, admits that this Form is still not disposed of and without disposal of the Form the property in question could not have been put to auction in ordinary cases but in the case in hand, it could be auctioned inasmuch as claim of the petitioner has already been rejected by the competent authorities;
(iii) that the plot in question having been resumed and the petitioner having failed to retain the property under Settlement Scheme No,VI is not entitled to the transfer of the plot under Settlement Scheme No,VIII. Reliance in this behalf is placed by the learned counsel on the case of Saeed Ahmad Qureshi v. Ch. Muhammad Siddique and another (1988 SCMR 1668);
(iv) that the writ petition is barred by laches inasmuch as the same has been filed after a delay of about 24 years with effect from the order of resumption. Reliance is placed on the case of Settlement Authority through the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and another v. Mst.
Akhtar Sultana (PLD 1976 SC 410); and
(v) that there is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Tribunals below that the petitioner had been served with notice prior to the resumption of the property in question, therefore, this finding cannot be set aside in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
5. I have considered the arguments addressed by both the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. I agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent that the order of resumption dated 20-3-1968 has become final and cannot be challenged in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court on merits and also on the principle of laches.
Hence writ petition is dismissed as against the order dated 20-3-1968. However even if the said order remains in the field yet the last Form submitted by the petitioner on 12-10-1973 required disposal before the property was put to auction. Admittedly this Form is still not disposed of and the property in question has been disposed of in open auction. The question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the transfer of the plot in question or not as per relevant scheme under which the last Form has been submitted is yet to be determined by the competent authorities.
Order of rejection of previously submitted Form is illegal and is void as the same has been rejected without notice and without judicious application of mind to the facts of the case on the basis of office notice. This view is supported by Fazal Dad v. Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab (PLD 1977 Lah. 264). The auction proceedings, therefore, are patently illegal and without lawful authority and could not have been held without first disposing of the Form No,RSS. VIII-543 dated 12-104973. The principle of laches is not attracted in this case inasmuch as the impugned order of auction is dated 24-5-1980 and the order of dismissal of the revision petition is dated 24-2-1981. This writ petition has been filed on 14-3-1981, therefore, it C cannot be .Said that to the extent of challenging the auction proceedings in question, there is any inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner.
Order of rejection of Form dated 14-6-1974 was not communicated. Even otherwise if an order is illegal, void and unfair, the principle of laches does not stand in the D way of exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court as held in the case of Pakistan Post Office v. Settlement Commissioner (1987 SCMR 1119) at pages 1124-1125 as under:- "The next aspect relates to the nature of the order impugned before the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. We agree that the mere fact that the order is void would not necessarily displace the bar of laches in equitable jurisdiction. The rule is that if it is a just and proper order then notwithstanding it being otherwise void, it need not be set aside in writ jurisdiction, if the same was filed after inordinate delay. See S. Sharif Ahmad Hashmi v. CUrman, Screening Committee, Lahore and another 1978 SCMR 367. On the other hand, if it is a void order and is also unjust and improper besides being illegal, the High Court will have no hesitation in setting it aside despite the objection regarding laches. It is so because the High Court would then be acting on a still higher principle than that of laches that; injustice is not perpetuated with the blessings of the Court in its discretionary jurisdiction, as the discretion to dismiss a writ petition cannot be exercised in aid of injustice."
' Judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents are distinguishable on facts.
' In view of the above, I accept this writ petition, the impugned orders of auction as well as the orders dated 14-6-1974 and 24-2-1981 are declared to be illegal and without lawful authority and are set aside with the result that the Forms submitted by the petitioner shall be deemed to be pending before respondent No,1 who shall dispose of the same in accordance with law and decide the matter within a period of three months with effect from today. Parties to bear their own costs.