' MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J. ---The dispute between the parties relates to an erstwhile evacuee house bearing No, 168/A, situate in village Sanjarpur Nau, Tehsil Sadiqabad. District Rahimyar Khan.
The respondent, who admittedly is a local, filed L.H. Form under Settlement Scheme No,I for its transfer in his favour on the basis of his possession, but it was rejected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rahimyar Khan, on 9th July, 1960, on the ground that he did not pursue the matter, and failed to appear despite the service of notice. This further led the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to infer that the respondent did not consider himself to be entitled to the transfer of the house. In the order aforesaid, a direction was also given for inclusion of the house in the list of the auctionable properties. Accordingly, the house was put to auction thrice, but it could not be disposed of despite reduction of the reserve price from Rs,15,360 to 10,000. The appellant offered a bid of Rs,5,000 only, but subsequently raised his offer to Rs,8,225, which was accepted by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Multan, by his order dated 2-1-1961, and in compliance therewith the house was ultimately tansferred to the appellant by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner under his order dated 24-1-1961. Thereafter, P.T.O. Was issued to him on 29-3-1961, which was followed by P.T.D. Dated 12-2-1964.
2. It is evident from the record before us that on the strength of these titled documents on 7-6-1973 the appellant filed a suit against the respondent for his eviction from the house. The respondent, thereafter, through invocation of writ jurisdiction challenged the validity of orders dated 9-7-1960 and 2-1-1961. The writ petition was brought on 19-4-1974, wherein it was asserted that the respondent had all along been inquiring from the Settlement Officer about the disposal of his L.H.
Form; that after service of notice on him in the ejectment suit, he got the settlement file inspected through his Counsel and for the first time came to know of the order dated 9-7-1960, whereby his L.H. Form was rejected. It was claimed that the respondent was eligible for transfer of the house under Settlement Scheme No, VII.
3. The learned Single Judge maintained that in rejecting the respondent's L.H. Form the requirements of paras. 8, 10 and 11 of Settlement Scheme No,I were not complied with and, therefore, the order dated 9-7-1960 suffered from an illegality. He also found that the notice referred to in the said order was not on the Settlement file, from which he drew an inference that no such notice was issued to the respondent. Before the learned Single Judge it was also contended that the writ petition suffered from laches and thus could not proceed, but this submission was turned down on the authority of S. Zahid All v. The Pakistan Ordnance Factories Board, Wall Cantt, and another (PLD 1971, Lahore 229). In that case the High Court declined to throw away the writ petition on the ground of plea of laches, as it had been admitted for regular hearing 3 years earlier and was at the final hearing stage. In view of his these findings, the learned Single Judge accepted the respondent's writ petition, set aside the order of the Settlement authorities and remanded the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for its decision according to law and in the light of the observations made in the judgment impugned before us.
4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties we feel that there are certain salient aspects of this case which have been overlooked by the High Court and would call for setting aside of the impugned judgment. To begin with there is ample material on this file that the transfer price of the house was Rs,15,360, and according to law in vogue at the relevant time no house of the value of Rs,10,000 or more, in rural area could be transferred to a local. Obviously, because of his this disqualification the respondent in all circumstances was ineligible to apply for the house in dispute.
The rejection of his L.H. Form was inevitable. In this view of the matter, even if there was any contravention of some provision of Settlement Scheme No,I that would not be of much consequence.
5. As regards the respondent's claim under Settlement Scheme No, VII, it is to be noticed that this scheme was promulgated by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 7th August, 1961, and before that date the property had already been transferred to the appellant. Thus, it was not available for disposal under Settlement Scheme No,VII. In any case, being a local, the respondent's case could be considered by the Settlement authorities only if under para. No, 5 (ii) (c) of the Scheme as originally constituted, he had applied for transfer of the house in his name. It is not the respondent's case that he was an applicant under Scheme No, VII.
6. There is another important factor which disentitled the respondent for grant of relief under Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. As already observed, the writ petition was filed on 19-4- 1974; alternate remedy by way of revision was then available to him, which he did not avail of.
Further, he approached the High Court for judicial review of the orders of the Settlement authorities after about 14 years. It is difficult to accept that the respondent was unaware of his ineligibility; disposal of the property in consequence of rejection of his L.H. Form and settlement thereof on the appellant. As the value of the C house was more than Rs,10,000 his long silence and inaction to pursue his case is clearly suggestive of his acquiescence in the transfer of the property to the appellant. In these circumstances, the precedent referred to in the impugned judgment clearly has no application to the case in hand. The High Court was wrong to interfere with the order transferring the property to the appellant.
' For all these reasons, this appeal is accepted and the judgment of the High Court is set aside.
Consequently, the orders of the Settlement Authorities transferring the house to the appellant stand restored. The parties are left to bear their own costs.