MUHAMMAD NAEEM And Another vs CHAIRMAN, AUCTION COMMITTEE, OKARA And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition challenging the cancellation of an auction of evacuee property. The property was originally auctioned to the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, Muhammad Shafi, in 1967, but he failed to pay the remaining balance despite receiving a notice in 1968. Consequently, the auction was cancelled, and the property was later sold to another party in 1969. The petitioners, heirs of the original purchaser, challenged these actions nearly 19 years later. The core legal question was whether the cancellation of the auction was valid and whether the writ petition was maintainable after such an extensive delay. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the cancellation was lawful due to the original purchaser's failure to comply with payment obligations. Furthermore, the Court held that the petition was barred by laches, as the petitioners failed to provide a valid legal justification for the nineteen-year delay in challenging the administrative action, thereby rendering the petition meritless.
- Can a constitutional petition be dismissed on the grounds of laches when there is an unexplained delay of nineteen years?
- Is the cancellation of an auction of evacuee property valid if the purchaser fails to pay the remaining auction price after receiving notice?
- Does the failure of a predecessor-in-interest to challenge an administrative order preclude his legal heirs from challenging it decades later?
- Settlement Scheme No. 8
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.- This petition i(s directed against the judgment dated 8.3.2000 of the Lahore High Court, through which Constitutional petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.
2. The property in dispute was purchased by Muhammad Shafi predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners being evacuee property in open auction on 27.7.1967. He was required to deposit the remaining amount of auction price amounting to Rs.1650/-but he failed to do so. According to respondent No. 4, a notice was issued to Muhammad Shafi, deceased on 26.11.1968 to make payment of the said remaining amount but he failed, therefore, auction was cancelled from his name and the property was put to auction on a number of times but it did not fetch any price, therefore, the department reduced reserved price and sold to respondent No. 4 in open auction on 20.6.1969. After payment of full price, necessary documents of PTO and PTD were also issued to him who is admittedly in possession thereof.
3. Muhammad Shafi died on 11.1.1969. During his life-time admittedly he did not make any effort or approach the Settlement Department for making deposit of the remaining amount nor did he claim possession of the property. The present petitioners, according to learned counsel, during life- time of Muhammad Shafi, had gone to Karachi and settled there and were doing business. They on the death of Muhammad Shafi at Okara came there for his burial ceremonies and went back to Karachi. It was on 9.10.1986 that the petitioners filed writ petition before the High Court challenging the orders of the Settlement Authorities of cancellation of auction of property in favour of Muhammad Shafi and transfer of the same to respondent No. 4 i.e. After the period of about 19 years. The writ petition has been dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 8.3.2000 against which leave is sought.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no notice was envisaged by Settlement Scheme No. 8 was issued to Muhammad Shafi or the present petitioners as his legal heirs to make payment of the remaining price, therefore, the auction in favour of Muhammad Shafi could not be cancelled.
5. Learned Judge of the High Court has given finding that Muhammad Shafi during his life-time was issued notice on 26.11.1968 to make payment of the remaining price but he failed, therefore, it was on account of non-compliance of the said notice that the auction in his favour was cancelled.
No explanation has been given as to how and why the petitioners remained inactive in the matter and did not take any step to clear the remaining auction price.
6. The only ground urged in the writ petition to explain such a long delay was that the petitioners came to Okara before filing the Constitutional petition where they came to know that the property had been purchased by Muhammad Shafi in the auction. It is no explanation in the eye of law, for a person who had purchased the property in dispute should himself have taken steps to clear the dues. Muhammad Shafi during his life-time did not move in the matter when that he was issued notice dated 26.11.1968, therefore, in our view, it has been rightly held that apart from their being no illegality in the proceedings, the writ petition suffered from laches.
7. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality, therefore, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused.