1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The petitioner purchased a house in auction in Bahawalpur on 5th May, 1971 for a sum of Rs. 7,200. A P. T. O. Was issued to him on 12th May, 1961. He paid a sum of Rs. 5,100 and the balance remained unpaid. Despite several notices he did not clear the balance. Ultimately, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner cancelled the petitioner's P.T.O. On 31st January, 1970 and informed the petitioner that in case he paid the balance of the transfer price and other dues within the prescribed period the property shall be restored to him. No heed was even paid to this order.
2. Consequently, the property in question was re-auctioned on 23rd .May, 1970 and was purchased by respondent No. 4. The auction was confirmed on 29th May, 1970 and a P. T. O. Was issued in the name of Respondent No. 4 on 4th June, 1970 after making payment of the transfer price and other dues.
3. The petitioner challenged the auction in favour of respondent No. 4 by filing an appeal which was dismissed. He then filed a revision petition but remained unsuccessful. He then moved the High Court by filing a writ petition (W. P. No. 35-R/72/BWP) which was also dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had been served three notices but he never cared to make the payment. According to the instructions appear--ing at page 103 of Old Manual of Settlement he was liable to pay the transfer price within 30 days but he did not pay the same during the last 11 years on account of his persistent failure to pay the transfer price for about 11 years and his inability to find out as to what was happening with the property, though it was put to auction, the petitioner did not deserve any relief in the discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court. The writ petition was, therefore, dismissed vide order dated 20th February. 1975.
4. Ch. Muhammad Latif Rawn, in support of this petition, has submitted firstly that there was no order of resumption and, consequently, the property could not have been put in auction again. There is no force in this submission because the Deputy Settlement Commissioner cancelled the petitioners P. T. O. On 31st January, 1970 which amounted to an order of resumption.
5. The learned counsel next contended that the price at which the property was auctioned on the second occasion was only Its. 3,250 which was even less than the price that the petitioner had already paid in connection with the first auction in his favour and the shop should not have been taken away from him for the sake of an auction purchaser who was paying much less that what the petitioner had already paid. There is some force in this submission and we feel that the Settlement --authorities should have taken this circumstance into account before confirming the auction in favour of respondent No. 4. Since his auction has been confirmed and he has been issued a P. T. D. We would not like to upset it at the instance of a party who has forfeited his right by his own default. Anyhow he is at least entitled to the return of the money deposited by him.
6. We, therefore, direct that the amount of Rs. 5.100 should be returned to the petitioner forthwith.
7. This petition, with these observations, stand dismissed.