1970 PLP 542 (SCMR)

SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑The dispute in this petition for special leave to appeal relates to shop No. D‑IV‑S. 3‑17, Sheikhupura. The respondent Nur Muhammad who was a local, applied for its transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VI on the claim that it was a burnt site of which he was in posses sion. Earlier, the auction of this property was held twice, once on the 24,th of February 1960, in which one, Muhammad Ishaq made a bid for Rs. 19,000 but which fizzled out be cause he failed to deposit the auction‑money, except for the paltry amount of Rs. 250 as the initial payment. Again, it was put to auction on the 19th of December 1969. in which the petitioner made the highest bid and deposited Rs. 8,000 towards initial payment. The auction bid, however, was not confirmed in his favour as, in the meanwhile, the respondent Nur Muhammad had brought a writ petition in the High Court for the enforcement of his entitlement to the transfer of this shop and the confirmation of the auction in favour of the petitioner was withheld in pursuance thereof during the pendency of the writ petition. The respondent's writ petition Was accepted by the High Court on the 15th of December 1965, and it was directed "that the case be sent back to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner with the direc tion that he should dispose of the application submitted by the petitioner, (Nur Muhammad respondent before us) in accordance with law". In compliance with the High Court's order the shop was disposed of in favour of Nur Muhammad. The petitioner preferred a letters patent appeal in the High Court against the order of the learned Single Judge which was dismissed on the 16th of December 1969, on the ground that the petitioner had not acquired any right in the property in dispute and thus could not take any objection to the validity of the transfer of the shop in favour of the respondent. It is conceded by the learned counsel at the Bar that the auction in favour of the petitioner was never confirmed. He was no doubt the highest bidder at the second auction and had also deposited a substantial amount of the auction‑money but until the confirmation of the auction was made in his favour by the relevant authority, he did not acquire an right in the property whatsoever. Paragraph 9 of the terms and conditions of the auction of "building sites" under which the auction in question had been held, provided that the highest bid given by a person could be rejected without assigning any reason for it. This being the position, the auction on which the peti tioner is relying for his rights, was inchoate and its confir mation was suspended for an adjudication of the entitlement of the respondent which was later upheld. There is no substance in this petition which is dismissed. Petition dismissed.