P L D 1973 Supreme Court 117 (PLP)

(b) the resumption of such property or part thereof 1 and (c) the transfer, in any manner, of the property resumed . . . . . . . . to persons against cash payment . . . . . . . . . ." Paragraph 16‑A of the Schedule provides that notwithstanding anything contained in this Schedule, whenever any property is sold by public auction, the auction shall be subject to such terms and conditions as may be laid down by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, and that the Chief Settlement Commissioner may for reasons to be recorded in writing accept a bid other than the highest bid or refuse to accept any bid. Again, paragraph 21 (tit) of the Schedule provides that if the property is transferred to him under this Act by means of auction, the claimant shall pay the amount due from him after adjustment of the total amount of deferred payment admissible to him in accordance with the terms and conditions of auction. By Memorandum No. 839‑PI‑Reh.‑60, dated the 9th January 1960, the Chief Settlement Commissioner directed the auction of shops to be held under the supervision of an Auction Committee consisting of the following :‑ (1) Additional Settlement Commissioners of the region concerned (Chairman). (2) Deputy Settlement Commissioner of the area concerned (Member). (3) A representative of the Deputy Commissioner (Member). The Chief Settlement Commissioner further directed that the terms and conditions of auction prescribed in the case of industrial concerns might be adopted mutatis mutandis for the auction of shops and might include the following :‑ (i) One year's gross annual rent of the shop approximately may be prescribed as the earnest money. (ii) .. Claimants will deposit their Compen sation or Rehabilitation Books instead of paying earnest money in cash provided there is sufficient balance in the amount of deferred payment or compensation available to cover the earnest money. The Compensation Books of unsuccessful bidders will be returned to them immediately after the auction. If a claimant who is a successful bidder defaults in any manner necessitating forfeiture of earnest money, an entry with regard to the amount forfeited on this account will be made in the Compensation or Rehabilitation Book. (iii) The Chairman, Auction Committee may for reasons to be recorded in writing accept a bid other than the highest bid or refuse to accept any bid. The Chief Settlement Commissioner directed that if the highest bid offered in any case was less than the reserve price, the Chairman of the Auction Committee might at his discretion transfer the shop to any person who was prepared to pay at least the reserve price. Furthermore, that if for some reason the Additional Settlement Commissioner was unable to preside over the auction the Deputy Settlement Commissioner of the area concerned should do so. By a Press Note, dated the 3rd March 1960, the Chief Settlement Commissioner decided (hat the following terms and conditions might, Inter alia, be prescribed while disposing of shops and building sites by public auction :‑ "(i) The successful bidder will deposit twenty‑five percent of the bid money immediately on the fall of hammer. He should produce either Compensation Books of this value or deposit the amount in cash or in the form of a bank draft in the name of the Chairman, Auction Committee, on the date of auction. (ii) The balance of seventy‑five percent of the bid money will be paid by the successful bidder within thirty days unless a longer period is prescribed in the terms and conditions of auction. (iii) If the successful bidder fails to fulfil the aforesaid conditions or any other condition prescribed by the Settlement Authority concerned, the auction in his favour will be cancelled and the property may be re‑auctioned. The" Press Note bore the following post script :‑ "The imposition of the above conditions have become necessary as the Chief Settlement Commissioner has received reports that In a number of cases the successful bidders have failed to deposit the bid money in accordance with the terms and conditions of auction and have withdrawn their offers thereby delaying disposal of the property." The Press Note contains the latest instructions of the Chief Settlement Commissioner on the terms and conditions that should govern the disposal of shops by public sanction, and it is therefore, applicable in the present case. It is, thus, evident from the foregoing provisions of law and the instructions issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, who was competent to issue them, that the successful bidder was required to pay 25 % of the bid money in cash immediately on acceptance of the bid. In the case of the claimant, however, this 25 % could be paid by his surrender of Compensation and Rehabilitation Book and it could be adjusted against his claim provided the claim was sufficient enough to cover the 25 %. Now, so far as the payment of this 25 % of the bid money is concerned, on the admission of the appellant himself in his application appearing at page 49 of the paper‑book, he paid only Rs. 7,400 as against the bid money of Rs. 48,

000. The sum of Rs. 7,400 is not equivalent to 25 % of Rs. 48,

000. Again, admittedly the appellant has not paid the balance of the bid money uptill now although several opportunities were given to him by the Settlement Authorities including the Additional Settlement Commissioner. According to the conditions laid down in the aforesaid Press Note, the balance of 75 % of the bid money was required to be paid by the appellant within 30 days of the day of auction. The appellant having failed to comply with the requirements of the payment of 25 % of the bid money, and the balance of 75 % within the requisite period, the auction in his favour was validly cancelled fn terms of paragraph (iii) o the said Press Note and this was exactly what was done by the Additional Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 27th of April 1962. The cancellation was, therefore, done in pursuance of the terms and conditions laid down by the Chief Settlement Commissioner himself. The Additional Chief Settle ment Commissioner being the Chairman of the Auction Committee was fully authorised to take necessary consequential action in case the auction‑purchaser failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the auction. We, accordingly, hold that the Additional Settlement Commissioner was fully competent to pass the impugned order of cancellation. The two notices that were issued to the appellant were entirely ex gratin and as it appears from the record, he was given more than enough Indulgence to pay up the bid money and comply with the terms and conditions of sale. It appears further that on the failure of the appellant, the disputed property was transferred to Fazal Karim, predecessor of respondents Nos. 3(i) to 3(vi) on negotiation for a sum of Rs. 48,003 in terms of the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, dated the 27th April 1962, and the transfer was confirmed by the Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 4th of June 1962. The appellant is a tailor whose daily income is Rs. 10 only. He never could have the means to purchase the shops. At the time of auction his claim amounting to Rs. 7,440 only was available to him in his Com pensation Book and this sum was wholly inadequate even to meet the requisite 25 % of the bid money. His alleged agreement of association, dated the 3rd June 1962, with Mst. Manzur Fatima was sought to be pit in before the Additional Settlement Commissioner on the 4th June 1962, but the Settlement Commissioner did not permit him to do so. The shops now stand transferred to another person. The appellant has been never in possession of the shops. In these circumstances the appellant has no locus standi and he is merely fighting the battle of Mst. Manzur Fatima who is a stranger. This view is supported by the decision of this Court in the case of Abdul Qayyum v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (HLD1968SC362). Mr. Nisar Muhammad Khan, learned Advocate who appeared for the Settlement Department has said that he has nothing to add to the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 3(i) to 3(vi). There is no substance in this appeal and I would, accordingly, dismiss the appeal, but without any order as to costs. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑I agree. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑I agree. ANWARUL HAQ, J.‑I agree. K. B. A. Appeal dismissed.