1969 PLP 334 (SCMR)

Date of hearing : 11th April 1969. M. R. KHAN, J.‑The dispute giving rise to this petition for special leave to appeal relates to a vacant plot of land measuring 3 marlas and 205 sq. feet recorded in Khasra No. 3468, Tilak Nagar, Badami Bagh, Lahore. A house bearing No. N‑VII‑22‑S‑20 is also included in Khasra No. 3468. The total ground area of the said plot and the house is 7 marlas and 223 sq. feet. The petition Beer Din obtained the transfer of that house in February 1960, on an N. C. H. Form. On 20‑5‑1950, a plot of 3 marlas and 205 sq. feet recorded in Khasra No. 3468 was included in an auction list. On the objection of Mohammad Altaf (respondent No. 4 in the special leave petition) the said plot was excluded from the auction list on 22‑5‑60 and was subsequently reserved to be transferred to him, vide order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, dated 28‑6‑1960. In November 1961, the entire land recorded in the said khasra was put to auction, and the petitioner's bid at the auction was accepted and was ultimately confirmed on 14‑2‑1962 by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. Altaf then moved a writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 1668‑R of 1962, questioning auction sale of the plot having an area of 3 marlas and 205 sq. feet, which was earlier reserved for transfer to him. 7 he High Court accepted that writ petition in spite of contest by the present petitioner Beer Din and held that the reservation of the said plot of land in favour of Altaf was validly made. This matter was, however, remanded by the High Court for a fresh decision by the Settlement Authorities, after hearing the parties. After the remand, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, by his order dated 30‑1‑1965, maintained the reservation of the plot of 3 marlas and 205 sq. feet in favour of Altaf and held that t~ remaining are4 of 4 marlas and 18 sq. feet including the house as aforesaid was available for transfer to Beer Din. Beer Din's appeal against this order, dated 30‑1‑65 was unsuccessful, and his revisional application against the appellate order met the same fate. Beer Din then moved Writ Petition No. 602‑R of 1968 in the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore and challenged the validity of the orders of the Settlement Authorities made after the High Court's order of remand. This writ petition was dismissed in limine by a learned Single Judge of the High Court. A Letters Patent Appeal by Beer Din against the learned Single Judge's judgment was also dismissed in limine. Beer Din now seeks special leave to appeal against the judgment in the Letters Patent Appeal. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the Letters Patent appeal mainly on the following grounds (i) The P. I. O. issued in favour of Beer Din, as conceded by his learned counsel, did not mention the disputed plot of 3 marlas and 205 sq. feet as forming part of the house transferred to him. (ii) In the earlier Writ Petition No. 1668‑R of 1962, the disputed plot was held to have been validly reserved for transfer to Mohammad Altaf. 1n his written statement in that writ petition, Beer Din took the stand that a portion of the land of Khasra No. 3468 was included in the house transferred to him. (iii) Beer Din participated in the auction in November 1961 notwithstanding the earlier transfer of the house to him in February 1960 on an N. C. H. Form. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the Letters Patent Bench exceeded its jurisdiction in placing reliance on the pleadings in the earlier writ petition and misread the record. It is further urged that the petitioner is not debarred from rely ing on the transfer order in his favour on N. C. H. Form, which was earlier than his bid at the auction. There is no substance in these contentions. The earlier writ petition that is Writ Petition No. 1668‑R of 1962 was between the same parties and, as such no exception can be taken to the consideration of the stand taken by the petitioner in his written statement in the said writ petition. Admittedly, the petitioner gave bid in the auction which was subsequent to the transfer of the house in his favour. Had that transfer included the disputed plot of 3 marlas and 205 sq. feet there was hardly any reason for his giving bid in the auction. There was nothing wrong in taking into consideration this conduct of the petitioner. There is no merit in the petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Leave refused.