IFTIKHAR AHMAD vs AMIRUDDIN And Another
This civil petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a writ petition challenging an order of the Settlement Commissioner regarding the resumption and re-auction of evacuee property. The core question was whether property purchased by respondent No. 1 via auction, for which full payment was made and a Provisional Transfer Order (P.T.O.) issued, could validly be resumed and re-auctioned to the petitioner. The Settlement Commissioner found that respondent No. 1 had paid the full price and that the department's resumption was based on official malfeasance, noting that resumption notices were neither necessary nor served. Consequently, the re-auction and transfer to the petitioner were declared void and illegal. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that where full payment was made and auction confirmed, resumption proceedings without proper basis or notice are entirely void and illegal. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether evacuee property fully paid for by an auction purchaser can be resumed and re-auctioned due to departmental error or malfeasance?
- Whether resumption proceedings conducted without serving notice on the transferee are void and illegal?
- Whether the High Court correctly dismissed a writ petition challenging a Settlement Commissioner's order that set aside an invalid re-auction of property?
ORDER
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The question that arose in this case was whether the property in dispute, which was purchased by respondent No. 1 through auction on 10-8-1960, could be resumed and offered again for re-auction?
2. The property was resumed from respondent No. 1 on the alleged ground that he had not paid the auction price. In the re-auction, the property was purchased by Iftikhar Ahmad, petitioner. The respondent No. 1, therefore, challenged the re-auction in his favour and when the whole matter was scrutinised by the learned Settlement Commissioner. He found the resumption to be wholly unjustified. This is evident from his order, dated 18-7-1975 wherein he observed:-- "I find that this is one of the most serious cases of official malfesance. The 'house had already been transferred to the appellant through an auction held on 10-8-1960. He had paid the full price through his two compensation books as mentioned above on 12-9-1980. He had also been issued a P.T.O. But then the officials played a trick and showed the price as still due from the appellant and got the property re-auctioned and transferred to the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that notice had been issued to the appellant before the property was resumed but there are two points which have to be considered in this connection. First, there was absolutely no need to issue any notice to the appellant when he had already paid the full auction price, second, the P.T.O. Had been issued and the auction had been confirmed by the proper authority.
The only thing which the Department had to do was to issue him the P.T.D. Second, the notices issued to the appellant had never been served on him. I have seen the notices. There are three notices on the file. There is absolutely no endorsement to show that the service had been affected on the appellant. The entire proceedings involving the second auction in favour of the respondent and the transfer of the property to him, therefore, were void and illegal."
The writ petition filed by the petitioner against the above order of the Settlement Commissioner was dismissed and this petition for leave is directed against the said order.
3. In view of the clear findings recorded by the Settlement Commissioner, the High Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioner's writ petition and we agree wholeheartedly with that decision.
This petition fails and is dismissed hereby.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD SALIM and 2 others vs ABDULLAH and 3 others 1990 MLD 760