MUSHTAQ HUSAIN, J.-Karam Din, predecessor-in-interest of Respondent No. 3, was admittedly the occupant of property No. 19 situated in Ward No. 8 Katchi Abadi, Nusrat Road, Multan. On 26-9-1960 the property was auctioned and purchased by one Maqbool Ahmad but the same was cancelled as the auction-purchaser failed to pay the price. On 27-7-68 the property was again put to auction but nobody bid for it. On 27-8-1968 it was reaction and Ch. Nazir Ahmad, petitioner, was the successful bidder. The auction was confirmed on .31-,8-1968 and a P. T. D. Was issued in favour of Nazir on 8-11-1968.
2. On 12-10-1971 the petitioner issued a Notice to the respondent and on 5-6-1974 the possession of the property in dispute, it is contended, was delivered to the petitioner.
3. Karam Din thereafter died and is survived by three sons Ghulam Hussain, Muhammad Ramzan and Ghulam -Muhammad. Out of them Ghulam Hussain filed an appeal on 13-1-1972 against the auction sale in which the property was purchased by the petitioner. On 29-8-1972 the Additional Settlement Commissioner 'rejected the appeal and a petition for revision suffered the same fate at the hands of the Settlement Commissioner on 19-5-1973 which led to the respondents' filing a Writ Petition No. 1623/R of 1974 which was accepted by the High Court on 16-4-1980. Hence this petition for special leave to appeal.
4. A perusal of the record would show that Karam Din had applied for the transfer of the house to him on an L. H. Form (Annexure `C'). His application was accepted by the Settlement Department and a notice of transfer was duly issued to him (Annexure `E'). This was followed by a Provisional Transfer Order of the house in his favour (Annexure 'F').
5. There being thus a lawfully issued Provisional Transfer Order in favour of Karam Din, the property could not have been put to auction unless a notice of demand was issued to Karani Din and on his failure to make the payment of the price proper orders of resumption were passed of which Karam Din would have been only duly notified. None of these things having been done, the auction of the property was without lawful authority and the petitioner has no claim over it.
6. We consequently refuse to interfere with the orders of the High Court. The petition for special leave to appeal is dismissed.