MUNSHI MUHAMMAD AND Another IFHAMULLAH KHAN vs FAIZANUL HAQ AND Another FAIZANUL HAQ AND 2 Other M. Arif, Advocate Supreme Court Instructed By Ejaz Ahmad Khan,

1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-This order will dispose of two petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 23 and 24 of 1971, the former filed by Munshi Muhammad and Muhammad Parvaiz, and the latter by Ifhamullah Khan, who were the successful bidders in an auction of some plots in land comprised in Khasra No. 3953, Zaildar Road, Lahore. This land had earlier been allotted to respondent, Faizanul Haq, on the 12th of December 1949, and subsequently transferred to him by the Settlement Authorities. This land, which measured 10 kanals 2 marlas, was divided into 15 plots. Some of them were put to auction, in which Ifhamullah Khan, petitioner, was the highest bidder for one plot measuring 9 marlas, while the petitioners in the second petition (Munshi Muhammad and Muhammad Parvaiz) were the highest bidders of some other plots measuring 1 kanal 10 marlas.

2. The confirm--ing authorities did not accord approval to these auctions, and the land was in its entirety transferred in favour of the respon--dent. The petitioners filed writ petitions in the High Court against this transfer, which were dismissed, on the short ground that as auction-purchasers whose bids had not been finally approved by the relevant authorities, the petitioners were not clothed with any right in the auctioned properties, and had, therefore, no locus standi to challenge the transfer competently made by the Settlement Authorities in favour of the respondent.

3. The view formed by the High Court is unexceptionable. Since the auctions in favour of the petitioners were not finally approved, they did not acquire any right in the properties, and had, therefore, no locus standi to ask for their transfer. Accord--ing to the terms and conditions of the auction itself, the highest bids offered in the auctions were subject to the approval of the Additional Settlement Commissioner concerned, who may or may not accept the bids, without assigning any reasons for his action.

4. The manner of the exercise of this discretion by the relevant authorities, as conferred by law, is not amenable to writ jurisdic--tion of the High Court, unless it be found to be arbitrary or fanciful. This is not so in the present case.

5. The petitions are dismissed.