MERAJ DIN vs NOOR MUHAMMAD AND 3 Other
This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a dispute over the transfer of a shop in Sheikhupura, which was claimed by the respondent under Settlement Scheme No. VI as a burnt site. The petitioner was the highest bidder in a subsequent auction of the property, but the auction was never confirmed in his favour due to pending writ proceedings initiated by the respondent. The core legal question was whether an unconfirmed highest bidder at a public auction acquires any enforceable right in the property. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that until an auction is confirmed by the relevant competent authority, the highest bidder acquires no right in the property whatsoever, especially when the auction terms permit the rejection of bids without assigning reasons. The Court concluded that the petitioner's auction was inchoate and dismissed the petition, affirming that pending writ proceedings and the lack of confirmation preclude any vested right for the bidder.
- Does the highest bidder at a public auction acquire any right in the property before the auction is confirmed?
- Can an unconfirmed auction bid be treated as a complete and enforceable transaction?
- Does a highest bidder have enforceable rights when the auction terms permit the rejection of bids without assigning reasons?
- Settlement Scheme No. VI
1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-The dispute in this petition for special leave to appeal relates to shop No. D-IV- S. 3-17, Sheikhupura. The respondent Nur Muhammad who was a local, applied for its transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VI on the claim that it was a burnt site of which he was in posses--sion.
2. Earlier, the auction of this property was held twice, once on the 24th of February 1960, in which one, Muhammad Ishaq made a bid for Rs. 19,000 but which fizzled out be--cause he failed to deposit the auction-money, except for the paltry amount of Rs. 250 as the initial payment. Again, it was put to auction on the 19th of December 1969. In which the petitioner made the highest bid and deposited Rs. 8,000 towards initial payment. The auction bid, however, was not confirmed in his favour as, in the meanwhile, the respondent Nur Muhammad had brought a writ petition in the High Court for the enforcement of his entitlement to the transfer of this shop and the confirmation of the auction in favour of the petitioner was withheld in pursuance thereof during the pendency of the writ petition. The respondent's writ petition Was accepted by the High Court on the 15th of December 1965, and it was directed "that the case be sent back to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner with the direc--tion that he should dispose of the application submitted by the petitioner, (Nur Muhammad respondent before us) in accordance with law".
3. It is conceded by the learned counsel at the Bar that the auction in favour of the petitioner was never confirmed. He was no doubt the highest bidder at the second auction and had also deposited a substantial amount of the auction-money but until the confirmation of the auction was made in his favour by the relevant authority, he did not acquire an right in the property whatsoever. Paragraph 9 of the terms and conditions of the auction of "building sites" under which the auction in question had been held, provided that the highest bid given by a person could be rejected without assigning any reason for it.
4. This being the position, the auction on which the peti--tioner is relying for his rights, was inchoate and its confirmation--mation was suspended for an adjudication of the entitlement of the respondent which was later upheld.
5. There is no substance in this petition which is dismissed.
Cited by 22 cases
- Mst. AREEJ SIDDIQUA KHAN Versus CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman 2025 CLC 1516
- Dilawar Khan, Sardar Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 2022 PHC 664, 2024 MLD 1295
- HABIBULLAH ENERGY LIMITED through General-Manager vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman WAPDA, Lahore and 5 otherss 2008 YLR 2612
- AYAZ BUILDERS through Partner vs KARACHI WATER AND SEWERAGE BOARD 2007 CLC 728
- DILSHAD AHMED KHAN vs CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Director Estate ManagementII, Islamabad 2007 CLC 216
- Messrs IRIS--RIST TECHNOLOGIES (PVT) LTD. vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others 2006 PLD Lahore 198
- Babu JAVED AHMAD, TEHSIL NAZIM and 2 others vs ABDUL HAFEEZ 2005 YLR 1443
- CITY SCHOOLS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE CANTT. vs PRIVATIZATION COMMISSION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and another 2002 CLD 1158
- CITY SCHOOLS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE CANTT. vs PRIVATIZATION COMMISSION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others 2002 SCMR 1150
- CH. MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus PUNJAB PRIVATIZATION BOARD 2002 MLD 550
- PETROSIN PRODUCTS (PVT.) LTD. vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Through Secretary, Privatization Commission 2001 CLC 1412
- PETROSIN PRODUCTS PAKISTAN (PVT.) LIMITED vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN 2001 CLC 820
- PETROSIN PRODUCTS PAKISTAN (PVT.) LIMITED, ATTATURK AVENUE, ISLAMABAD 2001 P.C.T.L.R. 366
- Messrs HOTEL SUMMER RETREAT, NATHIAGALI through Managing Partner vs GOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P. through Secretary, C&W Department Peshawar and 5 others 1999 MLD 2418
- TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (PVT.) LIMITED Versus NIDERA HANDELSCOMPAGNIE B.V. 1997 CLC 1065
- ARSALLA KHAN vs BASHIR AHMAD BLOUR Arm 3 Other 1976 PLD Supreme Court 581
- Mufti AMANULLAH AND 65 ORTHERS vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND), PESHAWAR DIVISION, PESHAWAR AND 2 calms 1983 CLC 1801
- IMPERIL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, SAHIWAL and 30 others vs CHIEF 1999 YLR 1153
- The City Schools (Private) Limited vs The Privatization Commission, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and another 2003 C.L.R. 62
- BABU JAVED AHMAD, TEHSIL NAZIM, TEHSIL MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION CITY 2006 PLJ Lahore 245
- M/s. IRIS-RIST TECHNOLOGIES (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE vs GOVERNMENT OF 2006 PLJ Lahore 745
- Mst. Areeja Sidiqua vs Capital Development Authority through its 2025 IHC 40