Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 38 of 1968, decided on 25th June 1968.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench, Peshawar, dated the 9th November 1967, in Writ Petition No. 350 of 1966).

---Sch., Part II‑Auction of shop Person aggrieved by order of Settlement authority participating in fresh auction and subsequently after a long delay invoking writ jurisdiction of High Court and that too without exhausting other remedy available ‑Writ petition, in circumstances, held, rightly dismissed by High Court ‑Special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court.

Q. M. Salim, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. B. Khizar Tamimi, Senior Attorney for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 25th June 1968.

‑In this case the dispute is with respect to shop No. C/ 1504, Bakhre Bazar, Dera Ismail Khan.

This shop was in occupation of the petitioner Din Muhammad a local. It was put to auction on 26th January 1961, and the highest bid of Rs. 2,500 was that of the petitioner as against its reserved price of Rs. 2,880. In the bid sheet the reserved price was originally mentioned as Rs. 1,728, but it was subsequently corrected as Rs. 2,880. This correction was signed, but no date was, however, given under the signature. The auction to petitioner was not confirmed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. One Umargul filed a petition on 2nd February 1961, offering Rs. 3,000 for this shop at his offer was accepted by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, and eventually a P. T. O. and a P. T. D. were issued to him. On appeal by the present petitioner Din Muhammad, the Settlement Commissioner set aside the sale to Umargul on 7th January 1964, and ordered for re‑auction of the shop. The petitioner Din Muhammad participated in the said auction held in 16th November 1964, but could not compete with Muhammad Nawaz, who offered the highest bid of Rs. 5,000. Eventually the said offer was accepted by the Additional Settlement Commissioner.

Din Muhammad then filed a time‑barred appeal before the Settlement Commissioner, and the same was returned to him for presentation before the proper Officer. He then filed the appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, but the same was not accompanied by any petition for condonation of the delay. Additional Settlement Commissioner, while dismissing the appeal as time‑barred observed that there was also no sub stance in the appeal. He pointed out that on his appeal, the Settlement Commissioner ordered auction of the shop and there after he also participated in the auction but could not compete with the highest bidder.

Din Muhammad then moved a writ petition in the High Court, but the same was dismissed. He now seeks special leave to appeal against the order of the High Court.

The learned counsel has found it difficult to contend that the learned Judges of the High Court were not justified in dismissing the writ petition.

By the writ petition he was challenging the auction of the shop in 1964, on the ground that it had already been auctioned in 1961. After auction of 1961 the shop was sold to Umargul and on his appeal the said sale was set aside on 7th January 1964, and‑the Settlement Commissioner, ordered for auction of the shop. He then did not file any writ petition to challenge his order. On the other hand, he participated in the auction. He then filed a time‑barred appeal against the said auction but the same was dismissed. He instead of going in revision moved a writ in the High Court. In view of the above facts and circum stances the High Court has rightly pointed out that he having accepted the order of the Settlement Officer cannot be permitted to challenge the said order. Furthermore his petition could have also been dismissed on the ground of laches.

There is, therefore, no merit in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed.

Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.