1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against an order made by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 946-R of 1965 in respect of 1/24th share in Qadiria Flour Mills, Jhang Bazar, Lyallpur.
2. The share in dispute was put to open public auction on 11-12-1964 and purchased by the petitioner Abdur Rashid for Its. 17,000, as against the reserve price of Rs. 10,000. The two respondents objected to the confirmation of the auction, alleging that several irregularities had been committed in conducting the same, but the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner rejected these objections and confirmed the auction by his order dated the 15th February 1965. Thereupon, the respondents filed an appeal before the Settlement Commissioner which was, however, converted into a revision petition and accepted by him on the 5th July 1965, holding that due publicity had not beers given to the auction and, therefore, it was in violation of the prescribed rules and procedure.
3. The learned Settlement Commissioner, accordingly, set aside the auction in favour of the petitioner and directed that fresh auction be held.
4. Aggrieved by this order of -the learned Settlement Commis--sioner, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, but his petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge, observing that the Settlement Commissioner was right in setting aside the auction for want of due publicity and non--compliance with the prescribed procedure.
5. We find that all these contentions have been adequately dealt with by the High Court and rightly repelled. The question' whether there had been due publicity or not for the auction is primarily a question of fact and has been answered in the negative by the learned Settlement Commissioner whose finding has been upheld by the learned Single Judge in the High Court.1 We do not see how we can interfere in this behalf.
6. As regards the locus standi of the respondent, it is undoubtedly correct that this Court has taken the view that a person who is not an applicant for the transfer of a particular evacuee property, has no locus standi to challenge its disposal by public auction as at best his right would be at par with the members of the general public, but in the circumstances of the present case this question does not arise. The learned Single Judge has rightly pointed out that this is a case where the learned Settlement Commissioner should be deemed to have exercised his suo mote power of revision as vesting in him under subsection (3) of section of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. Once the matter of the irregular auction proceedings had been brought to his notice, it was open to him to act suo mote in the exercise of his revisional powers and he must be deemed to have done so.
7. The High Court is right in saying that the matter before the Settlement Commissioner did involve a question of entitlement, namely, the right of the auction-purchaser to retain the property even though the auction had not been conducted properly in accordance with the prescribed procedure. This was, therefore, a matter fully covered by the provisions of the relevant subsection which confers revisional powers on the Settlement Commissioner.
8. The various contentions raised in support of the petition having been found to be without substance, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.