SHER MUHAMMAD vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND Other
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that declined to interfere with the auction of an open plot. The petitioner, a transferee of the plot, failed to deposit the full price within the time period agreed upon with the Additional Settlement Commissioner. Consequently, the authorities auctioned the plot. The petitioner argued that the auction was procedurally flawed due to the lack of mandatory notices required under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The High Court rejected this contention, primarily citing the petitioner's own conduct in failing to meet payment obligations, thereby disentitling him to discretionary writ jurisdiction. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the High Court failed to consider equitable factors, such as his status as a displaced person, his long-term physical possession, and the existence of a permanent structure on the plot. The Supreme Court, without deciding the merits, converted the petition into an appeal to further examine the legal implications of the auction process in light of the cited precedent regarding procedural requirements for such auctions.
- Can a transferee of an open plot challenge an auction sale if they failed to deposit the price within the agreed timeframe?
- Does the failure to pay the price of a plot within the agreed period disentitle a petitioner from seeking discretionary writ jurisdiction?
- Is the issuance of specific notices under Settlement Scheme No. VIII a mandatory prerequisite before auctioning a plot?
- Settlement Scheme No. VIII
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The petitioner, who was the transferee of an open plot, failed to deposit the full amount of its price within the period of time specified in the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and which period has been fixed with his consent. The plot was, thereupon, put to auction.
2. The petitioner contended that the plot could not have been put to auction without issuance of certain further notices specified in the Settlement Scheme No. VIII but this contention was rejected by the High Court largely on the ground that in view of the conduct of the petitioner in failing to fulfill his obligations to pay the price within the period fixed with his consent his conduct disentitled him to any relief under the discretionary writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
3. Before us it is contended that since the matter has been decided mainly on equitable considerations the learned Judge in the High Court should also have taken into consideration the circumstance that the petitioner was a displaced person, he was in the physical possession of the plot since decades that he has raised a pacca contraction over the plot which if the orders of the Settlement authorities were not interfered with, would also go to the auction purchaser free of cost and that since then he had also paid the full price (at a point of time after his revision had been accepted by the Settlement Commissioner by an ex parte order, which was ultimately recalled).
4. As for the legal aspect, the learned counsel relied upon Mst. Zarina Rauf Butt etc. v. Malik Aziz Ahmad etc. (PLD 1982 SC 272) in support of his submission that the plot could not have been auctioned in the circumstances of the present case.
5. We would convert this petition into an appeal.
6. Security in the sum of Rs. 2,000 which should be deposited within ten days.
7. The appeal to be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to add further documents, if any, and fixed for hearing in the month of May, 1983.