P L D 1957 W (PLP)

H. A. MAJID, J.

Mushtaq Ahmad (minor) has through his father, Dr. Jamil, put in this petition for revision against the order of the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, dated 2nd December 1955, rejecting his appeal against the order which the Additional Collector, Hyderabad. had passed on 17th June 1955. The latter order was to the effect that the sale, by auction of some land belonging: to Dharam Chand (respondent No. 1) which had been carried out by the Deputy Collector, Tando Muhammad Khan, on the 10th, 11th and 12th March 1955, should be set aside. The area offered for sale was 197 acres 27 ghuntas and the highest bid had come from the present petitioner at the rate of Rs. 304 per acre against the upset price of Rs. 299 per acre. It appears that the Deputy Collector, who carried cut the original auction in March 1955 actually confirmed the sale on 14th April 1955. The Additional Collector passed his order dated 17th June 1955, after taking into account the order which the Deputy Collector had passed earlier. It can, therefore, be assumed that the Additional Collector considered the Deputy Collector's order as a nullity. In fact, a Deputy Collector is not authorised to confirm a sale in a case where an objection has been raised within the specified time, The Sind Government Resolution No, R-796-F dated the 13th November 1940, lays down that the powers of a Collector, which could be exercised in a Sub-Division by the Deputy Collector, should not include questions of setting aside of a sale under sections 178 and 179 of the Land Revenue Code. The Deputy Collector's order dated 14th April 1955, mentions that the owner of the land, which had been offered for sale, had put in an objection. The Deputy Collector should have, therefore stayed his hand immediately and requested the Collector or the Additional Collector to pass final orders. In the above circumstances, it is clear that the Deputy Collector's order was incompetent and that the Additional Collector was perfectly justified in not recognising its existence. Otherwise, of course, such an order could be upset by the Collector or Additional Collector on appeal or even by way of revision. The correct position, therefore is that the first legal order passed after the auction bad been conducted was the order of the Additional Collector dated 17th June 1955. This order set aside the sale. The auction-purchaser appealed to the Commissioner without success. He wants me to interfere by way of revision. It is clear that in a matter of this kind interference in revision would be justified only where a clear injustice is being caused to particular party. A Collector puts up some land for auction and later on finds that the circumstances of the auction justify that the sale should be set aside. This is a matter within his discretion and the higher officers should not disturb the arrangements which he has made. The Collector gave the following reasons for setting aside the sale :- (1) Enough publicity was not given with the result that the local owners did not get an opportunity of bidding during the auction ; . (2) The proclamation notice was not affixed on the dwelling place of Dharam Chand ; (3) That a large area was offered in one lot. It would have been more desirable to divide the area into a number of smaller plots so that higher prices should have been obtained ; and (4) That Mr. Rifaqat Ullah claimed that a part of the land in question had been previously purchased by him from the defaulter (Dharam Chand) and that the said part should be left out of the area which was being offered for sale. It appears to me that the formalities in items (1), (2) and (3) above were observed in a reasonable manner. The documents on the record show that a notice had been affixed at the door of the place in which Mr. Dharam Chand used to live near the locality. It does not make any material difference if Dharam Chand had become a person with more than one abode. The land had been put up for sale in one lot on a previous occasion also and when the sale was set aside, no-one had suggested to the Deputy Collector that the land should be divided into more lots than one. The previous sale had been upset on the ground that the price obtained was not adequate. A fresh upset price of Rs. 299 per acre was fixed and when this has been exceeded in the auction in dispute, it cannot be said that the price obtained is unreasonably small. Arrangements for publicity regarding the sale also appear to have been made in a reasonable manner. There was enough attendance at the auction so much so that the defaulter himself brought prospective purchasers in order to take part in the auction. In the above circumstances, I would have thought that there were no irregularities in respect of the formalities to be observed, before and at the auction. 1, however, find that the matter mentioned at No. (4) above makes a material difference to the case as will appear from the discussion in the next succeeding paragraphs. Mr. Rifaqat Ullah claims to have purchased nearly 300 acres of land from Dharam Chand in the year 1950. The Deputy Custodian had permitted the latter to sell 300 acres of land. A registered deed was executed for the purpose. It appeared, however, that the land which was sold to Mr. Rifaqat Ullah was to a considerable extent such land as Mr. Dharam Chand had obtained from the Revenue Officer Sukkur Barrage, and for which he had failed to pay some of the instalments due. The grant of the land had been can?celled from his khata at the time when the registered sale deed in favour of Mr. Rifaqat Ullah was executed, Later on however, a re‑grant was obtained on payment of some Rs. 12,000 to the Revenue Officer. Mr. Rifaqat Ullah claims that the re‑grant of the same land had the effect of making the sale in his favour fully valid. He has told me during the arguments that this defect in his title had been removed in the year 1952‑

53. He accordingly claims that when the land in question was auctioned in March 1955, a serious error was committed, because a considerable part of the land was really his property and not that of Mr. Dharam Chand. He has further informed me that the Collector has in March 1956, granted him the necessary sanction under the Rural Credit and Land Transfer Act. I need not go into the question whether Mr. Rifaqat Ullah has any valid title in any part of the land which was put up for auction in March 1955. 1 need not similarly decide to‑day whether he had any title in any part of that land at the time when it was put up for auction. I do, how?ever, feel that since Mr. Rifaqat Ullah had informed the authorities that he had some title in the land (Note.‑I have traced at least one communication dated 2nd March 1954, from him in the record of the Collector and a letter dated 14th December 1953, of the latter regarding this matter in the record of the Mukhtiarkar), the authorities were required to take his objection into account and give a decision about it before undertaking the auction. Even if I came to the conclusion to‑day that Mr, Rifaqat Ullah's objection at the time Should have been dismissed, I would not like to confirm the sale which actually took place, because, in my opinion, such an irregularity cannot be put right after the event. The result is that I dismiss this petition for revision. I would, however, like to say that in putting up the land of Mr. Dharam Chand to auction again, the local authorities should make sure that they do not sell any land which belongs to any other person. They should similarly not be deterred from putting up any of Mr. Dharam Chand's land for sale simply because some‑one else lays any claim to it. The only safeguard needed in a case of the latter type is that the third party laying a claim to the land should be given an adequate opportunity for making his claim clear so that the Revenue Officer should not be later on accused of under?taking the auction of some property with which the defaulter had no concern. An inquiry of this kind previous to the auction is, in my opinion, absolutely essential, and if such an inquiry is not conducted at all, the default would be an adequate ground for setting aside the sale under section 179 of the Land Revenue Code. I would, however, like to mention that Dharam Chand is now contesting the validity of Rifaqat Ullah's title to any part of the land in dispute. Judgment was reserved in this case. The parties should be informed through their counsel. K. M. A.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.