1983 PLP 1149 (SCMR)

M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.‑The dispute relates to House No. S‑IV‑25‑S‑5, Beadon Road, Lahore. It had been transferred in favour of respondent Mst. Amina Begum, a widow, and Appendix X had issued in her favour on 3‑8‑1960 for the sum of Rs. 43,200 computed on the basis of Rs. 90 p.m. She paid Rs. 29,060 leaving a balance of Rs. 14,140. 'The Department, however, issued a notice to her on 24‑12‑1965 informing her that the total price of the house came to Rs. 52,800 calculated at the rate of Rs. 110 p.m. and calling upon her to pay the balance amount of Rs. 23,

740. She filed applications dated 11‑8‑1967 before the Chief Settlement Commissioner and dated 27‑11‑1967 before the Settle ment Commissioner (Urban) protesting against the enhancement of the assessment and praying that she, being a widow, had no source of income, and offered to pay Rs. 4,000 immediately and the balance by instalment of Rs. 2,000 p.m. This latter application was sent down to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for "a detailed report after taking necessary action". Meanwhile, as the Deputy Settlement Commis sioner had already, on 19‑10‑1967, resumed the property for the purpose of putting it to auction, she applied for its deletion from the auction list, which request was granted on 8‑3‑1968 and she paid Rs. 4,000 the same day. Notwithstanding the fact that the house had been deleted from the auction list and her application questioning the enhancement of the assessment had been pending inquiry, the property was put to auction and when no bid was offered, its price was reduced by half and it was again put to auction, at which it was sold in favour of petitioner No. 1 M. Sharif Hilal for Rs. 30,

100. Her appeal and revision having failed and the auction having in the meantime been confirmed and a P. T. D. issued in favour of the petitioner, she filed Writ Petition No. 1100/R of 1970. in the result of which the matter was remanded for a fresh decision. The High Court held that the enhancement of the valuation being unilateral and without bearing her was illegal and the property could not have been resumed particularly when she had already paid Rs. 33,

060. On remand, the Additional Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 8‑10‑1976 set aside the auction proceeding and restored the property to the widow. The petitioners agitated the matter by Writ Petition No. 1732/R of 1976 but the same was dismissed in limine by the impugned order, dated 29‑11‑1976. Hence this petition for grant of leave to appeal.

2. The contention raised before the High Court that P. T. D. having already issued in favour of the petitioners the transfer made in their favour by auction had become unquestionable and that the appeal filed by the widow had been time‑barred were overruled for the reason that the auction was illegal and that as the question of fixation of the price of the house, of which she had already paid a major part, was still sub judica, it was not necessary for her to have even filed an appeal.

3. After hearing learned counsel, we are satisfied that this is not a fit case for interference. Obviously while the question of the enhancement of the price was still pending consideration before the Settlement Authorities, the holding of the auction was unwarranted and any right based on such auction was devoid of validity, The petition is dismissed. S. Q. Petition dismissed.