1984 PLP 961 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD HALEEM C. J.‑‑‑‑Property bearing No. S‑19‑R‑67 known as Chopra Building. The Mall, Lahore, was disposed of as a big mansion by public auction on 12th of August, 1959. The petitioners gave the Highest bid of Rs. 8,10,000, which was confirmed on 8th of October, 1959. The petitioners paid the full price thereof. The petitioners then applied to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner ‑ the demarcation of the property as, according to them, the property; atoned also included the workshop behind the building to the possession which they were also entitled. This application was referred to the Deputy settlement Commissioner (Industries) for disposal who held by his order, dated 14th of July, 1962, that this workshop which was in possession of respondent No. I was a part and parcel of Property No. S‑19‑R‑

67. This order was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Industries), Lahore on 1‑11‑1962, but the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore, while disposing he revision filed by respondent No. I hold that the workshop was a pa t of property bearing No S-19-R-67-A and not the property auction. The petitioners, accordingly, challenged this order, dated 14‑5‑1963 through a writ petition in the Lahore High Court, Lahore, but did not succeed as the petition was dismissed. The Lahore High Court upheld the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner and in doing so relied firstly, on the auction notice published in the Pakistan Times, Lahore, dated 9th of August, 1959, giving the number of the property and its description. Secondly, on the plan of the property duly submitted by the Executive Engineer according to which the boundaries of the property sold to the petitioners comprised Khasra Nos. 1294, 1299 and 1300. The land covered by these Khasra numbers was 6 Kanals 11 Marlas and 35 sq. ft. as shown in the bid‑sheet and the big mansion fetched a rent of Rs. 250 per mensem as according to the entries in the municipal record of the year 1946. And thirdly, the existence of a big wall as noticed, on inspection, by the Settlement Commissioner separating the workshops in possession of the petitioners and the respondent No. 1 which was separately numbered as S‑19‑R‑E7‑A in the municipal record relating to the year 1946. Accordingly, the High Court concluded that mere reference to the workshop in Exh. P. D. (auction proceedings) did not mean both the workshops as the one in possession of the respondent No. 1 was partitioned and separately numbered and not auctioned. The counsel for the Departments appeared with the record and we examined the handwritten bid‑sheet recording bids of different bidders and so also the property number and its description namely, workshop (Chopra building) and the area of 6 Kanals 11 Marlas and 35 sq. ft. This is duly signed by the three Members of the Auction Committee. The learned counsel for the petitioners while admitting that the property described in auction notice and the bid‑sheet was delivered to the petitioners, yet contending that the word "workshop" in the bid‑sheet meant both the workshops as a whole and for this he relied on a receipt issued by the Accountant‑Cashier dated 12th of August, 1959, a note with the recommendation for accepting the bid and its approval by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and a memo randum of the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Industries), dated 27th of October, 1959 In the receipt, apart from the property number mentioned in the bid‑sheet and the auction notice, the separate No. "67‑A" is added while in the other two documents the number is the same as in the bid‑sheet The monthly rent is also not correctly stated in the note as the rental of the building in the municipal record was Rs. 1,215, and not Rs. 13,

985. The memorandum mentions the workshop as being included in the building bearing No. S‑19‑R‑

67. None of these documents are helpful for holding that the workshop in possession of the respondent No 1, bearing separate number, was covered by the property number given in the auction notice and the bid‑sheet. The Settlement Commissioner in his order dated 14‑5‑1963 has thoroughly, gone into this question of fact as i evident from para. 2, clauses (i), (ii)(a)(b)(c), lib), (iv), (v) and (vi) of hi order and, the High Court has given due effect to it. Obviously the bid that was given and accepted was for Property No. S‑19‑R‑67 and not for property bearing No. S‑19‑R‑67‑A, which was established to be a separate property. The auction notice also supports the bid‑sheet as it also gives the same slumber and description of the property. Accordingly, as the numbers are distinct, the petitioners can only legally claim the property bearing No. S‑19‑R‑67 for which they had given the offer, which was duly accepted, and not the property bearing No. S‑i9‑R‑67‑A, which was a distinct property. Contractually they are bound by what was sold. In this view of the matter, we do not see any substance in this petition, which is dismissed. M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.