Auction of land

2025 SCMR 773 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss.42 & 54Suit for declaration and injunctionAuction of landMatching bid of highest bidNo concluded contact vesting interest in property

Appellants/plaintiffs were occupants of suit land who were given option to match the highest bid during auction of suit land

Suit filed by appellants/plaintiffs against respondent/Evacuee Trust Property Board was dismissed by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court decreed the same against respondent/Board

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court

Validity

Bid at an auction was only an offer and without confirmation or approval it did not create any right in the property in favour of successful bidder

By matching bid of the highest bidder, appellants/plaintiffs merely stepped into their shoes

Status of appellants/plaintiffs upon exercising the option was no different from the highest bidder

Decision was made to re-auction suit land, and there was nothing preventing appellants/plaintiffs from participating in auction

Rejecting of highest bid and order of re-auction had afforded equal opportunity to persons whose bid had been rejected

Principles of natural justice were not deemed to have been violated

Acceptance of highest bid was subject to approval or confirmation by competent authority and unless and until such approval was granted or confirmation was made there was no concluded contract vesting the highest bidder with an interest in the property subjected to auction

Since approval contemplated by terms and conditions of auction was never issued in favour of appellants/plaintiffs, they were not entitled to a declaration to the effect that respondent/ETPB was legally bound to receive remaining amount of the highest bid and vested the appellants/plaintiffs with ownership rights in suit land

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court

Appeal was dismissed.

2015 CLD 437 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 19 & 22Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 47Execution of decreeSale, setting aside ofAuction of landResumption of said land by GovernmentEffect

Banking Court acquired knowledge about resumption of land in question by Government and status quo granted by Supreme Court

Banking Court was required to cancel entire auction proceedings in respect of land in question which was not even available for auction in view of resumption of the same by Government, as well as in view of pendency of proceedings before Supreme Court, wherein status quo order was operative

Amount deposited by auction purchaser was required to be returned which had not been done, on the contrary, request of appellant was declined

High Court set aside the order passed by Banking Court and directed the office to return entire bid amount deposited by appellant in respect of subject land to appellant

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

2010 CLC 976 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 3(1)Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199Constitutional petitionAuction of landExtra institutional influenceEffect

Grievance of petitioner was that he was highest bidder but authorities allotted land in question to respondent on the basis of some extra institutional influence

Validity

Once . it had been decided after scrutiny of record that property should be put to auction, authorities had no jurisdiction to advert to the mode of proceedings to the benefit of respondent

Petitioner had been facing atrocities on the part of Executive

Litigant public had always come in law courts with expectation of judicial treatment with their cases of facing incidental hardship and their dispute should not be decided on extraneous consideration or on recommendations of persons having some authority or influence to wield

System would be spoiled if already not destroyed and stream of justice should be allowed to flow unpolluted by extra institutional influence

While passing order in favour of respondent, authorities had transgressed the limit of jurisdiction in behaving under the command of Army personnel

Order passed by authorities in favour of respondent was without lawful authority, of no legal effect and mala fide

Decision taken in favour of petitioner originally in auction proceedings would remain intact and petitioner was declared owner of land in question

Petition was allowed accordingly.

2009 PLC 21 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 46 & 48Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O.13RetrenchmentAppealEmployees were retrenched in view of financial crisis being faced by the CorporationService benefits, admissible under the rules, were paid to the employees

Employees, however, filed appeals under S.4 read with S.2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 before Federal Service Tribunal challenging their retrenchment

Pending appeals, Supreme Court, in case (PLD 2006 SC 602) declared S.2-A of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 to be illegal; in pursuance of said judgment, employees filed grievance petitions under S.46 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 before the Labour Court and same were allowed vide impugned judgment and employees were reinstated with all back-benefits

Registrar, Service Tribunal intimated employees that their appeals had abated in view of the judgment of Supreme Court

Order of abatement of employee's appeals passed by Registrar Service Tribunal, had no legal sanctity

Impugned judgment passed by Labour Court, was also not maintainable, which was set aside

Order passed by the Registrar was also declared null and void

Appeals of employees would be deemed to be pending before Service Tribunal and issue of their abatement would be decided by the Service Tribunal after hearing the parties, in the light of principles laid down in the judgments of the apex Court

Office would remit the record to Service Tribunal.