1. M. R. KHAN, J.-The dispute in this case relates to shop No. 385/11, Muslim Bazar, Bhakkar. This shop was put to auction on the 22nd December 1964, under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The petitioner gave the highest bid of Rs. 10,000. This bid was accepted, and the auction was confirmed on the 6th January 1965. The petitioner deposited a compensation book in his name and in the name of his brother, but it carried only a deferred value of Rs. 1,923 in the petitioner's name. No overt act was done by the petitioner to associate his brother with the bid in respect of the disputed shop. The result was that the compensation book carrying a deferred value of Rs. 1,928 in the petitioner's name fell short of the 1/4th of the bid money. At no time after the acceptance of the bid, the petitioner paid any further sum towards the auction price. In this circumstance, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner cancelled the auction on the 18th May 1967, after giving a notice to the petitioner. The petitioner's appeal and revision against the order cancelling the auction having become fruitless, he made I writ petition in the High Court calling in question the validity of the order cancelling the auction. The writ petition was dismissed in limine. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal.
2. It is an admitted fact that the compensation book deposited by the petitioner carried an amount of Rs. 1,928 in his name. There is nothing to show that if the petitioner's brother was associated with the bid, although the compensation book was also in his name. Thus the initial payment was less than 1/4th of the auction bid. It is also admitted that no other amount was deposited by the petitioner, although the bid took place as early as the 22nd December 1964. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that no notice was served on the petitioner in terms of Paragraph 2 of the Settlement Scheme No. VIII before cancelling the auction. All the Settlement Authorities as also the learned Judges of the High Court have found on the basis of the materials on record that notice as to the intention of cancelling the auction was issued to the petitioner on account of default on his part. When the petitioner failed to deposit even the 1/4th of the auction bid, there is hardly any justification for our interference with the order of the High Court.
3. The petition is dismissed.