Babu PARVEZ QURESHI vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, MULTAN &

1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-The dispute in this case relates to house No. 378 of Ward No. 8-H, Multan. This is a composite building. The residential portion of it was allotted to one Khalil- ur- Rehman the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The ground floor of the premises consisting of shops was in the possession of Zahoor Ahmad barber and Hakim Abdul Majid at the time when the settlement operations started. Khalil-ur-Rehman, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents 2 and 3, submitted a N. C. H. Form on the 8th of August 1959 claiming the residential portion in his possession the rent of which was Rs.9 a month. The occupants of the shops, it appears, did not apply for their transfer. On the 10th of December 1959 the Deputy Settlement Com- -missioner transferred the residential portion of the chaubara to Kbalil-ur---Rehman for Rs. 4,968, and ordered the shops to be put to auction, but this order was made only on the 1st of July 1970.

2. The shops were accordingly included in the auction list, but respondent No. 2 on the 14th of July 1971 submitted an application praying that the shops be deleted from the auction list as it had already been transferred to her father Khalil-ur-Rehman and he had paid the entire transfer price. It appears that she had also filed an appeal against the order placing the shops in the auction list before the Additional Settlement Commissioner. This appeal was dismissed on 16-9-71 and the shops were directed to be put to auction. They were sold to the present petitioner on the 20th of April 1972. On his bid being accepted, he also deposited 1/4th of the auction price in accordance with the terms and conditions of the auction.

3. Respondents 2 and 3 being aggrieved by the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dismissing their appeal went up in revision before the Settlement Commissioner who on the 5th of January 1973 held the auction to be unwarranted and remanded the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for further action with respect to the adjustment and the issuance of the P. T. D. In favour of the heirs of Khalil-ur-Rehman.

4. The petitioner came up to the High Court in the writ jurisdiction, but his writ petition was dismissed on the ground that he being merely an auction-purchaser and the auction having not been confirmed the petitioner had no vested right to claim the property and, therefore, could not maintain the writ petition.

5. He now seeks special leave to appeal, and it is contended on his behalf that the fact that he had paid 1/4th of the purchase price did give him a right which he could assert in the writ jurisdiction.

6. This contention is opposed to several decisions of this Court wherein it has been clearly held that a mere right to bid does not give a right to a person to oppose the transfer of the property to another person under the relevant law.

7. A mere bid at an auction if the bid is subject to confirmation, does note create any contractual right until the bid is confirmed. It is in the discretion of the auctioneer to confirm or not to confirm it.

8. In the present case, the bid could not be confirmed, because the respondents 2 and 3 claimed teal the auction was illegal as the property concerned had already beet transferred. The Departmental Authorities found as a fact that it had so been transferred to the said respondents and cancelled the auction. The petitioner who was a successful bidder at the auction cannot claim to be a person aggrieved by this order of cancellation of the auction vide Civil Review Petition No. 22 of 1966 (Abdul Hamid Khan v. The Settlement Com--missioner, Lahore), decided on the 17th June 1966 by this Court and Muhammad Sharlf v. Sharifuddln (1972SCMR63) which is a decision in an appeal.

9. The High Court, in our view, was right in holding that the petitioner had no locus stand! To challenge the order cancelling the auction.

10. This petition is accordingly dismissed.