1991 PLP 1650 (CLC)

Writ Petition No.302‑R of 1987, heard on 6th May; 1991. ‑‑‑‑S. 3‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Cancellation of confirmed auction without giving any reason‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Petitioner, by auction purchase, acquiring proprietary rights, and also given possession of land in question, by Settlement Authorities, in 1984‑‑‑Auction of land was finalized quite in orderly manner by observing all legal formalities‑‑‑Chief Settlement Commissioner while cancelling such confirmed auction gave no reasons‑‑‑Fact that only one bidder i.e., petitioner gave bid at the auction was not a legal ground to reject such auction‑‑‑No justification was made out to remand the case for re‑auction of land in question‑‑‑Order in question, passed by Chief Settlement Commissioner was set aside being without lawful authority and of no legal effect

Petition was allowed in circumstances . Shuakat Ali Saqib for Petitrion. Ch. Muhammad Altaf, Ch.Nazar Hussain and Syed Najaf Hussain Shah for Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th May, 1991. A piece of land measuring 8 Kanals comprising Khasra No.1208 situated in village Baghiana Kalan, Tehsil Chunian, District Kasur, was auctioned. The petitioner participated in the auction and was declared successful. The petitioner paid the whole auction price of Rs.22,800 and ownership rights were also conferred upon him. The petitioner thus became owner of the land in question. An application was moved by respondents Nos.2 to 33 saying that auction of the land in question is based on fraud and misrepresentation and that nobody except the petitioner was allowed to participate in the auction and that he was declared successful secretly. Appeal of the respondents was heard and dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue) on 27‑10‑1985. However, revision of the contesting respondents 'was allowed by the learned Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, on 7‑6‑1987 and case was remanded to the respondent No.4, A.C./Collector Chunian, with a direction that the land in question shall be re‑auctioned. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard by me at some length. It is stated by the learned counsel that proprietary rights of the land in question have been conferred upon the petitioner and that no authority is now vested in the respondents to re‑open the case after its final disposal in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel argues that in similar circumstances, similar lands were auctioned wherein only one person participated and was declared successful bidder. Attention of the Court has been drawn to Annexures `H', `J' and `K' showing that under similar circumstances, similarly placed lands were auctioned with similar auction price. On these premises, it is argued by the learned counsel that no question of any fraud or misrepresentation will arise in this case. The petition has been opposed by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents and the learned counsel for the Settlement Department. In nutshell, case of the respondents is that auction in favour of the petitioner is bad in law inasmuch as it was not proclaimed in the village that the land in question shall be auctioned. I do not agree with the learned counsel inasmuch as it is too late in the day to give any credence to the contention raised and argued by the learned counsel. Land in question was auctioned as back as 1984 and proprietary rights have also been given to the petitioner. He is in the physical possession of the land as full owner. The record shows that auction of the land was finalized quite in an orderly line by observing all the legal formalities by the authorities. No solid reason has been given by the learned Member while cancelling the confirmed auction. The fact that there was only one bidder was not at all a legal ground to reject the auction. Such lands were sold similarly in the same area vide Annexures‑`H', `J' and `K'. It is, therefore, established that record was not perused by the learned Member when the impugned order was passed by him. There was absolutely no justification to remand the case for re‑auction of the land in question. The impugned order passed by the learned Member, (Revenue), Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner, is set aside being without lawful authority and of no legal consequence. The petition succeeds and is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. AA./M‑2962/L Petition accepted.