Mst. BASHIRAN And Others vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE And Other
This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of a shop in Hafizabad, District Gujranwala, which was initially auctioned by the Settlement Department on August 26, 1960. The central legal question addressed by the Supreme Court was whether the shop could validly be transferred to the occupant, Fazal Din, on October 13, 1971, despite a prior auction bid by one Nathu. The Court observed that while there was significant litigation regarding the identity of the original bidder and whether he had complied with payment requirements, these issues were secondary. The decisive factor was that the transfer price for the shop had not been cleared by the original auction purchaser before the property was declared 'available' for transfer and subsequently transferred to the occupant. Consequently, the Court held that the transfer to the occupant was valid under the circumstances. The Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal, affirming the lower authority's decision to finalize the transfer to the occupant due to the failure of the auction purchaser to complete the necessary financial obligations.
- Can a property be transferred to an occupant if the original auction purchaser failed to clear the transfer price?
- Does the failure of an auction purchaser to pay the transfer price render a property 'available' for transfer to an occupant?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J: --The dispute in this case is whether the shop in dispute, which is situated in Hafizabad, District Gujranwala and was put to auction by the Settlement Department on 26-8- 1960, could be transferred to Fazal Din, respondent No.3 on 13-10-1971?
2. It appears that one Nathu son of Karim was the successful bidder at the auction of the shop conducted on 26-8-1960 but the transfer in his favour could not be finalized. In the meanwhile, Fazal Din respondent No.3 who was admittedly in occupation of the shop was transferred this property on 13-10-1971 as the property which was still "available" for transfer.
3. A big battle has raged before the Settlement authorities as to whether the person who bid at the shop viz. Nathu son of Karim was the same person as Nathu son of Karam Elahi and if so whether the auction purchaser had taken the necessary steps to pay the transfer price by deposit of compensation books etc. But in our opinion these issues are not of first importance because the basic fact remains that the transfer price had not been cleared by the auction-purchaser before this shop was found "available" for transfer and then transferred to its occupant Fazal Din (respondent) on 13-10-1971.
4. In these circumstances, this is not a fit case for exercise of this Court's discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal.
5. Dismissed.