KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN,J.-The dispute in this case is about House No. 1925, in Mohallah Sakhira Ram, Peshawar City, which was transferred to Anis Ahmad, a claimant displaced person, respondent No. 4, herein,
2. He paid some part of the price but as lie failed to pay the remaining instalments, therefore, transfer from his name was cancelled by the Deputy Settlement on 16-3-1970, whereafter, the house was put in auction list for being disposed of by auction. The respondent applied for its deletion from auction list but his application was rejected on 9-5-1970.
3. He then filed an appeal against both the orders via. 16-3-1970 and 9-5-1970, which was accepted by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner on 12-ii-1970, and he was given time to clear the balance up to 27-8-1970.
4. As this period was not considered enough the respondent filed a revision for grant of more time, which was granted by the learned Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 6-1-1971, whereby time was extended up to 30-4-1971 within which the respondent cleared all the arrears.
5. However, it appear, that during the period when the aforesaid developments were taking place the auction of the property was held on 13-5-1970, which despite a stay order was confirmed on 15- 10-1970, and for which again despite a stay order the petitioner/appellant succeeded in obtaining a P. T. D. In his favour on 23-10-1970, on the basis of being as the highest bidder in the auction.
6. As these proceedings stood nullified due to the order of the learned Settlement Commissioner dated 6-t-1971, mentioned in para. 4 above, therefore, the petitioner/appellant/auction purchaser filed a constitutional petition being W. P. 63/71 but without any success as the same was dismissed on 2-4-2974. The petitioner/appellant has come up in appeal to this Court by special leave, which was granted on 7-2-1975, to consider the effect of all the aforesaid developments and the rights if any of the petitioner/appellant with reference to certain legal aspects of the case as mentioned in the leave granting order.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length but it is not necessary to deal with the various legal pleas raised by him because in view of the fact that the petitioner/appellant managed to get the auction confirmed on 15-10-1970 and obtained P. T. D. On 23-10-1970, despite stay orders being legally operative at both these stages, his conduct was such due to which he should not be permitted to get any relief by invoking a discretionary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, which he wants to enforce in the present appeal.
8. We further think that if the petitioner/appellant is allowed to do s then that will tantamount to putting premium on the aforesaid illegal] obtained confirmation and P. T. D. In his favour. Even otherwise, our view is that as the learned Settlement Commissioner had ample jurisdiction and discretion in the matter of granting time to a claimant displaced person to make payment of the balance of the price, therefore, this is not a fit case for interference with the exercise of that discretion on the peculiar facts and the circumstances herein before mentioned.
9. The result is that this appeal has no merit and is dismissed hereby.
10. It was agreed that our above order will cover Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No 16'7- P/79, consequently, the said petition is also dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.