1990CLC848 (PLP)

Abdul Majeeb Pirzada for Petitioner. Abdul Hafeez Lakho, A: G. for Respondent. Date of hearing: 12th June, 1989. AJMAL MIAN, C.J: The petitioner through this petition has impugned the order of deconfirmation of the auction in favour of the petitioner in. respect of agricultural land bearing Survey Nos.468/2, 474, 475, 476, 502, 505, 517 and 729 measuring 16 acres and 31 ghuntas, situated in Deh Langhano, Village Sodhari Taluka Mehar, District Dadu. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioner in a public auction gave the highest bid of the above survey numbers, namely, Rs.319 per acre which was accepted on 10‑3‑1968 subject to the confirmation by the respondent. It appears that the petitioner's above bid was confirmed by the respondent, whereafter part payment towards the aforesaid monetary consideration was paid by the petitioner. After that rubkari was issued to the petitioner. However, after the expiry of about two years the impugned deconfirmation order was passed without recording any reason and without first hearing the petitioner. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, had filed Constitution Petition No. 675/69 which was dismissed for default on 8‑10‑1974. The application for restoration was also dismissed on 4‑2‑1976 on the ground of being time‑barred. After that the petitioner filed the above petition. It may be observed that in the above petition the respondent filed written comments on or about 10‑4‑1969, in which it was averred that the impugned order was passed deconfirming the bid for the reason that one Ghulam Haider namely, respondent No.2 filed application claiming three Survey Nos. i.e. 502, 505 and 517 as non‑evacuee measuring about 6 acres. In support of the above petition Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada has contended that even if the confirmation order was to be modified it could have been done in respect of three survey numbers which were claimed by respondent No.2 and not in respect of remaining survey numbers about which there was no dispute. He has further submitted that the petitioner has no objection to the exclusion of the above three survey numbers. In our view, since the petitioner was not heard before passing of the impugned order and as the petitioner is agreeable to the exclusion of the above three survey numbers, we would remand the case to the respondent to hear the petitioner on the question, whether the order of deconfirmation in respect of A remaining survey numbers after excluding the three survey numbers may be re called. It will be open to the respondent to consider the changed circumstances which might have taken place because of the lapse of time. Mr. M.I. Memon, learned counsel who is appearing for the respondent No.2 has no objection to the above order. We would, therefore, remand the case to the respondent with the above direction. There will be no order as to costs. M.Y.H./P‑122/K Case remanded.