SALEH MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB

ORDER

1. JAVID IOBAL, J.‑‑ This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 31 October, 1981. Briefly the facts are that an ice factory in Faisalabad, the allotment of which had been applied for by the petitioner, was put to auction and the highest bid was accepted by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 29 August, 1959. However, the auction purchaser failed to deposit the auction price and therefore the property was resumed on 5 January, 1967. The resumption order was challenged by the auction purchaser but the Settlement Commissioner (Industries) dismissed his appeal on 6 May, 1969. The petitioner comes into the picture when he filed a civil suit in 1979 for a declaration that the Settlement Authorities be directed to decide the application of the petitioner submitted for allotment of the said property in 1959 and allot the same to him under the Settlement Scheme. His suit was dismissed for the petitioner was confronted with an order, dated 27 January, 1960 of the Chief Settlement Commissioner which showed that his application for allotment of the same had been rejected and he was given time up to 29 February, 1960 to vacate the portion of which he was claiming allotment. Thereafter the passage of 12 years the petitioner filed a writ petition which was rejected. Again the petitioner waited for two more years until he filed the present civil suit in 1975 which was dismissed by the Civil Judge and then his appeal was likewise dismissed by the Additional District Judge. The petitioner then challenged the orders of the Courts below by way of civil revision which was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal.

2. We have heard learned counsel at some length. The High Court has correctly held that the premises were put to auction in 1959 but the petitioner did neither move the Settlement Authorities for stopping the auction proceedings nor did he make a bid at the auction. Thereafter, he did not challenge the auction in favour of the auction purchaser. Instead he riled writ petition in 1971 i.e. after 12 years which was dismissed. He then in 1975 proceeded on the civil side and failed in all the Courts below including the High Court. Since this is the position no interference is called for in the judgment of the High Court. As a result this petition is dismissed.

3. M.A.K./S‑407/S Petition dismissed.