ANWARUD DIN AKMAL Versus ABDUL MATEEN SIDDIQUI
ORDER
1. GHULAM MUJADDID MIRZA, J. ββ Learned counsel for the petitioners contends, inter alia, that the High Court did not advert to an important legal aspect and that is that the Additional Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 26β5β1965 advised the Deputy Settlement Commissioner that the auction of houses in rural areas, A even of more than Rs.10,000 was not called for. Yet the Deputy Settlement Commissioner auctioned the property in dispute on 29β6β1965. This was contrary to law especially when the predecessor -inβinterest of the petitioners was held allottee in possession.
2. The contention has good deal of force. It needs to be examined in detail. Leave is accordingly granted.
3. Security Rs.5,000. Appeal to be prepared on the present record. The parties if they so wish may file additional documents within two months.
4. M.I./Aβ321/S Leave granted.