' This petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitutional Order, 1981 calls in question the order, dated 10th October, 1982 of the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha.
2. The facts relevant, as per record, for the disposal of this writ petition are that the evacuee land measuring 119 Kanals and 4 Marlas, comprising Square No, 2, Killa Nos. 21 and 22, Square No, 3, Killa No, 1/2, Square No, 15, Killa No, 10/1, Square No, 17, Killa Nos. 11 to 21, 22/1 and 22/2, situated in Village Chandna, Tehsil Shahpur, District Sargodha was initially sold in public auction in favour of one Karam Elahi at highest bid of Rs, 46,000 The auction purchaser did not deposit the auction money.
In consequence, the auction was cancelled and token money amounting to Rs, 9,200 deposited by him was also confiscated. The land was again put to public auction held on 24th June, 1982 at Rest House, Sahiwal. Seven persons including the petitioner participated in the auction. The petitioner's highest bid of Rs, 60,000 was accepted by the A.C./Collector, Shahpur. The auction was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Sargodha, vide his order, dated 11th July, 1982. The respondents Nos. 2 to 12 challenged this order by tiling an appeal before the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha contending therein that due publicity of the auction was not made in the village and that bid offered by the petitioner was very low. They also offered rupees one lac as bid and prayed for holding of fresh auction. The learned Commissioner after hearing the parties and perusing the record recorded a finding that due publicity had not been made with respect to the auction of the land in dispute. It was also observed that no appeal lay against the order of the Deputy Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands)
Sargodha, dated 11th July, 1982. However, the appeal was treated as representation. In this background the petitioners were directed to deposit a sum of rupees one lac with the Deputy Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Sargodha by 31st October, 1982. It was observed that in case the petitioners deposit this amount then the fresh auction of the land, in dispute, may be held and the bid was to begin from rupees one lac.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the order, dated I lth July, 1982 of the Additional Settlement Commissioner was not open to appeal and, therefore, it could not have been set aside on the basis of representation. It is further contended that the findings that due publicity had not been made with respect to the auction is based on misreading of material on record.
4. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents argued that even if the impugned order was without jurisdiction, it is not a fit case for the exercise of writ jurisdiction, in that the finding of fact has been recorded by the Commissioner that due publicity was not made before the land, in dispute, was put to auction. It is submitted that the disputed land is quite attractive and the petitioner should not be allowed to retain the property by causing heavy loss to the Public Exchaquer. Mr. Zia Mahmood Mirza counsel for respondents Nos. 2 to 12 also argued that the report of Muhammad Hayat Patwari regarding alleged proclamation through Muhammad Nawaz Chowkidar was false, inasmuch as it was not attested by any resident of the village.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and documents on record with their assistance.
6. The order, dated 11th July, 1982 of the Deputy Commissioner/ Additional Settlement Commissioner was not open to appeal and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination the Commissioner was competent to re-open the decided case on the basis of a representation in the absence of any revisional powers vesting in him. After the acceptance of bid, on payment of full price and confirmation of auction, the petitioner auction-purchaser acquired full proprietary rights in the land, in dispute, which could not have been interfered with by the Commissioned under any law.
7. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for respondents that in the light of ratio laid down in Raunaq Ali v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner (1) this Court should refuse to exercise the discretionary Constitutional jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner was patently unjust and unlawful, suffice it to say that the finding of fact recorded by the impugned order that no due publicity was made before the auction is based on misreading of material on record. The record shows that the proclamation of holding of auction was made in the Chak by beat of drum as per report of the Patwari and Chowkidar. The learned Commissioner has not stated either in the
(1) PLD 1973 SC 236 ' impugned order or in the report submitted to this Court that the report submitted by the Patwari was false. It is, therefore, difficult to sustain the plea of learned counsel Mr. Zia Mahmood Mirza that the said report was a false document. When faced with this situation, learned counsel for the respondents took up the plea that the Deputy Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha while approving the report of the A. C./Collector confirming the auction simply signed and did not pass a speaking order. I am afraid this by itself is not a sufficient, ground to treat confirmation of auction as without lawful authority. It is well-settled that regularity of presumption attaches to all official acts and therefore, it could be reasonably presumed that the Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha confirmed the auction after conscious application of mind. The scope of interference in the High Court in the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction is, no doubt, limited to the enquiry whether the impugned order or proceedings were conducted in accordance with law.
In the instant case, the Commissioner's order is not only ex facie without lawful authority but there is no material proper to be considered in support of the finding that due publicity was not given before the auction was conducted.
8. In view of the above, the order, dated 10th October, 1982 of the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The writ petition is accepted with no order as to costs.