' Parties are lying claim to Plot No,91-C, Model Town, Lahore in this Constitutional petition. The case of the petitioner is that, way back in 1962, he auction-purchased Plot No,36, Fazila Colony, Lahore; that he could not be delivered possession because the same was in occupation of various dwellers; that subsequently the Colony was declared as Katchi Abadri and, therefore, there was no chance of the petitioner to occupy the same; that in June, 1994, he applied to the Minister Incharge of settlement matters in the Punjab Government, to grant him alternative plot; that this application was marked to Chief Settlement Commissioner/MBR; and that in the proceedings that followed and after necessary enquiry, the suit plot was transferred to the petitioner by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 29-6-1974. Petitioner further asserts that on 2-9-1980 he applied for issue of PTD and on 10-9-1980, the Ward Incharge reported that the PTD cannot be issued as the suit plot was treated as residual property and transferred to respondent No,1 on 14-6-1980. The petitioner challenged the order in revision, but the Administrator dismissed the same on 19-9-1981.
He has, therefore, filed this Constitutional petition praying for setting aside the order of Deputy Administrator as well as Administrator, Residual Property and for transfer of suit plot in his favor.
2. It has been argued that the impugned order is bad in law as after transfer of suit plot to the petitioner on 29-6-1974, the same was not available for treatment under Residual Property Scheme. It is also submitted that in any case the order is bad because the petitioner was not heard before the order dated 14-6-1980. The further submission is that at best respondent No,1 can only get three times the plinth area and the whole of the plot measuring 6 Kanals cannot be transferred to her.
3. On behalf of respondents Nos.1 to 10, it has been urged that petitioner has made false averments, inasmuch as, petitioner never auction-purchased the plot in Fazila Colony which in fact was transferred to Farhad Illahi and if the petitioner has succeeded him, he should have so stated in the petition. It has further been urged that petition suffers from gross laches, inasmuch as, the orders dated 14-6-1980 and 19-9-1981 are sought to be challenged in this petition filed in the year 1980. It is further contended that the order of transfer in favor of the petitioner dated 29-6-1974 is void and has rightly been ignored and the suit plot treated as residual property. Reliance is placed on Province of the Punjab through Secretary, Health Department v. Dr. S. Muhammad Zafar Bukhari (PLD 1997 SC 351). Learned counsel for the Settlement Department has supported the impugned orders.
4. On behalf of respondent No,10, it is argued that the petitioner having been heard at the revisional stage, the original defect of non-hearing by the Deputy Administrator (Residual Property) stood cured. Learned counsel further emphasized the voidness of the order of transfer dated 29-6-1974 in favor of the petitioner by relying on section 4 of the Transfer of Evacuee Lands (Katchi Abadies)
Ordinance, 1972, which later on was adopted as the Act of the Parliament.
5. Both the Deputy Administrator as well as Administrator have held that order of transfer dated 29- 6-1974, as void and liable to be ignored on the ground that there was no provision at the relevant time in the relevant law for transfer of alternative plot to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that this reasoning is incorrect. Once the evacuee property is transferred, the transferee if not in physical possession could deal with the occupier under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. Therefore, merely because the petitioner could not recover possession did not furnish any valid basis for award of substituted property. Further, in this case the voidness of transfer to the petitioner is confirmed by section 4 of the Transfer of Evacuee Land (Katchi Abadis) Ordinance, 1972. Under this provision the transfer of Plot No,36, Fazila Colony in favor of the petitioner stood distinguished and the petitioner could only get such compensation as could have been determined by the Government. His application in June, 1974 that instead of the Fazila Colony plot he be given the Model Town Plot, was based on non-existent fact, viz. He ceased to be transferee of Plot No,36 in March, 1972. Therefore, there was no question of the petitioner's surrendering the original plot for acquiring the substituted plot. This provision of law does not seem to have been brought to the notice of Deputy Administrator and the Administrator, but it does fortify the view taken by the two officers that petitioner could not have been transferred the suit plot on 29-6-1974 and that the transfer was void. The argument that the suit plot was not available after 29th of June, 1974, for transfer has to be rejected.
6. In view of the above unassailable legal position, nothing turns on the argument that petitioner was not heard by the Deputy Administrator before passing the impugned order. The transfer in favor of the petitioner being wholly void hardly creates any right in his favor. In any case, the petitioner having been heard at the revisional stage, the original defect, if any, stood cured.
Similarly, the argument that respondent could only get three times of the plinth area has to be rejected. The argument proceeds on the premises that the suit plot was being transferred under Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1974. The transfer in favor of respondent No,1 has taken place under the Residual Property Scheme, which does not impose any such limitation. Under this scheme, the suit plot has been treated a some unit of residual property and is required to be transferred as such.
7. There is considerable weight in the argument that the petition suffers from gross laches of about eight years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to explain the delay by arguing that petitioner has been applying to obtain certified copies and it is the respondent-Department which failed to deliver the same in time. In this connection, learned counsel invited attention to copies of the applications annexed to the petition. These applications pertain to the year 1983 and the delay from 1983 to 1989 still remains unexplained. In any case, the petition could still have been lodged within reasonable time with reservation of right to place further documents on record as soon as they were made available by the respondent-Department. I hold the petition to be Suffering from gross laches and liable to be dismissed on this ground as well.
8. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the two transfer orders one in favor of the petitioner and the other in favor of respondent No,1 were passed by one and the same officer. The argument may cause a reflection upon the personality of the officer but it does not change the legal position as noted above. Further the case having been examined by the Administrator in revision, any force in the submission loses weight. Petitioner has also been guilty of suppression of fact, inasmuch as, it was one Farhad Illahi who was transferred the plot in Fazila Colony and not the petitioner. However, it has not been contested that the petitioner has succeeded to the interest of Farhad Illahi insofar as plot in Fazila Colony is concerned. The petitioner, therefore, retains the locus standi to maintain the petition, in spite of the incorrect description of facts by the petitioner.
9. For the above reasons, this petition is dismissed with costs.