LHMOOD ALI QADRI AND Another vs THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Letters Patent Appeal by the High Court, which had upheld a consent order regarding the mode of payment for an industrial concern purchased in auction. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioners were entitled to make payment for the auctioned property on the basis of the total amount of their verified claims in their compensation books rather than through deferred payment or cash as directed by the settlement authorities. The Supreme Court held that the adjustment was to be made on the basis of deferred payment as per the auction conditions and that the parties, having entered into a compromise before the learned Single Judge, were bound by it. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing that auction purchasers are bound by the specific terms of auction conditions regarding payment and by consent orders entered into before the court.
- Are auction purchasers bound by the specific terms and conditions of an auction regarding the adjustment of verified claims?
- Can a party challenge a consent order entered into before a court in subsequent appellate proceedings?
- Whether payment for an auctioned property under the settlement laws is governed by the conditions of the auction relating to deferred payment.
- Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act
ORDER
1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.--On the 28th September 1957, Sardar Carbonic Gas Factory, Rawalpindi, was sold through an auction and it was purchased by petitioner No. 1, along with other persons for Rs. 13,03,000. The price was subsequently reduced to Rs. 9,28,172. After adjustment of the payment through compensation books, the balance outstanding against them is Rs. 6,80,818. Arshad A.I, who also filed a compensation book applied that his compensation book should be returned to him.
2. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner, by Memorandum dated the 14th June 1966, informed the parties that he could be allowed to withdraw his compensation book if an amount equal to that available in his compensation book was first paid. This order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 954-R of 1966, on the ground that under the Displaced Persons (Com--pensation and Rehabilitation) Act, the payment could be made by associating claimants and, therefore, the impugned order directing payment by means of cash was illegal. A learned Single Judge of the former High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, held that payment through association was permissible under law till the 30th of June 1966. He passed a consent order providing the manner in which the balance of the amount was to be paid by the petitioners. The petitioners challenged this order in L. P. A. No. 64 of 1971, which was dismissed on the 2nd June 1971. The petitioners seek permission to file an appeal against the said order.
3. Mr. Munir Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the petitioners are entitled to make payment on the basis of the total amount of their verified claims is their com-- pensation books. In this connection he has referred to condition No. 12 on the basis of which the auction was held in favour of the petitioners. It reads as under :- "Displaced persons claimants whose claims have been verified will be allowed full benefit of their verified claims up to a maximum of Rs. 7 lac only. Successful bidders will have to produce a certified copy of the final judgment certifying the claim."
4. The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed us. Under the heading `claimants', the following condition has been mentioned in the earlier part of the proceeding of auction held on the 12th September 1957 :- "Successful bidders from amongst the claimants may be given the benefit of deferred payment against their unverified claims on a graduated scale."
5. It is, therefore, quite clear that the adjustment was to be made on the basis of deferred payment in the compensation book. The contention of the learned counsel that adjustment is to be made on the basis of the total amount of the compensation book is not supported by any reliable authority.
6. The parties have entered into a compromise before the learned Single Judge and they are bound by it. If the petitioners do no want to take the property in dispute they can approach the authorities concerned for the redress of their grievances. There is no force in the petition.
7. The petition is dismissed.