NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The question that arose in this case was whether the property in dispute, which was purchased by respondent No. 1 through auction on 10-8-1960, could be resumed and offered again for re-auction?
2. The property was resumed from respondent No. 1 on the alleged ground that he had not paid the auction price. In the re-auction, the property was purchased by Iftikhar Ahmad, petitioner. The respondent No. 1, therefore, challenged the re-auction in his favour and when the whole matter was scrutinised by the learned Settlement Commissioner. He found the resumption to be wholly unjustified. This is evident from his order, dated 18-7-1975 wherein he observed:-- "I find that this is one of the most serious cases of official malfesance. The 'house had already been transferred to the appellant through an auction held on 10-8-1960. He had paid the full price through his two compensation books as mentioned above on 12-9-1980. He had also been issued a P.T.O. But then the officials played a trick and showed the price as still due from the appellant and got the property re-auctioned and transferred to the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that notice had been issued to the appellant before the property was resumed but there are two points which have to be considered in this connection. First, there was absolutely no need to issue any notice to the appellant when he had already paid the full auction price, second, the P.T.O. Had been issued and the auction had been confirmed by the proper authority.
The only thing which the Department had to do was to issue him the P.T.D. Second, the notices issued to the appellant had never been served on him. I have seen the notices. There are three notices on the file. There is absolutely no endorsement to show that the service had been affected on the appellant. The entire proceedings involving the second auction in favour of the respondent and the transfer of the property to him, therefore, were void and illegal."
The writ petition filed by the petitioner against the above order of the Settlement Commissioner was dismissed and this petition for leave is directed against the said order.
3. In view of the clear findings recorded by the Settlement Commissioner, the High Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioner's writ petition and we agree wholeheartedly with that decision.
This petition fails and is dismissed hereby.