1. SAJIAD AHMAD, J.-In this appeal, by .Special leave, the dispute relates to a plot of land bearing No. 58, measuring about 2,567 square feet, situated at Sarhari, Taluka Shahdadpur, for which the appellant had bid successfully at an open auction held by the Revenue authorities on the 5th of January 1965, his being the highest bid at 32 Paisas per square foot. The auction was duly confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar, in favour of the appellant on the 14th of June 1965, followed by an ijazatnama in his name on the 20th of June 1965. The appellant also claims to have put up a construction on the plot. Subse--quently, a suit was filed by respondent No. 3 against the appellant in a civil Court for an injunction that he should be restrained from digging on the plot without any right. This suit was dismissed. Respondent No. 3 then filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, by which he challenged, the validity of the auction made in favour of the appellant, oil the ground that it had been held without dud publicity under the rules, and that he came to know about it only after the appel--lant had filed his written statement in the civil suit. This appeal was allowed by Additional Commissioner of Hyderabad on the 14th of May 1969, and in the result the auction was set aside, and it was ordered that the plot be re-auctioned.
2. The appellant filed a revision before a Member of the Board of Revenue, Lahore, who, by his order dated the 16th of January 1970, upheld the order of the Additional Commissioner. The appellant then filed a writ petition in the High Court, challenging the order of the Revenue authorities setting aside the auction in his favour. The writ petition was summarily dismissed.
3. Leave was granted by this Court to consider the appellant's contention that the learned Additional Commissioner and the learned Member, Board of Revenue had not taken into account the fact that the impugned auction was held after due publicity was given to it and notices had been issued to the general public on the 18th of December 1964. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to Annexures 'A' and 'B' of the Paper Book, each of which is a copy of the general notice about the auction of the plot in question, copies of which were endorsed to Supervision Tapedar and Tapedar, Sarhari, for publicity and information, Chairman, Union Council, Sarhari for general information, to the Deputy Collector, Shahdadpur, for being placed on the notice board and another copy to be placed on the notice board in the Taluka Office, Shahdadpur. In Annexure 'A', there is a note to the following effect :- "Notice :- .
4. Publicity regarding auction of Plot No. 58 of Sarhari, has been made through drum beat in the town of Salhari on 19-12-64, according to the letter.
5. (Sd.) Tapedar Sarhari 19-12-64."
6. "To The Mukhtiar kar, Shahdadpur Sir, A copy of the general notice regarding auction of Plot No. 58 of Sarhari town is returned herewith after making publicity through beat of drum on 20-12-64.
7. (Sd.) Supervision Tapedar."
8. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Member, Board of Revenue, was wrong in holding that there was no proof on the record that any publicity had been done in spite of the fact that these notices and their due publicity stand proved from the documents cited above.
9. The learned Additional Commissioner has observed in his order that the perusal of the record showed that there was a large scale resentment against the manner in which the auction was held, and that this protest was conveyed soon after the conclusion of the auction. He has further remarked that "it would be better in the interest of justice and equity that re-auction takes place in public interest". The learned Member, Board of Revenue, was of the opinion that in the re-auction the plot may be subdivided, if necessary, in accordance with the position on the site to accommodate poor persons who have interest in small portions of the disputed land to enable them to bid for these separate portion.
10. The learned Judges in the High Court have dismissed the writ petition of the appellant on the consideration that the order of the Revenue authorities for re-auction of the plot was fair and reasonable, and did not call for the exercise of the discre--tionary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 98 of the Constitution.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that even if it were to be assumed that the notices, as contained in Annexures `A' and `B', were given due publicity, they would not advance the appellant's case, as the notices on the face of them are not in accordance with the requirement of the law, as con--tained in the Land Revenue Code and the Land Revenue Rules made thereunder. It is submitted that the notices do not show the place where the auction was to be held, nor do they give the description of the land, nor were they pasted at the requisite places, as laid down by the relevant rules.
12. We are of the opinion, that the revenue authorities have set aside the auction after being satisfied that it had not been properly conducted, and that the High Court was perfectly justified in refusing to interfere with the order, which was made in valid exercise of their jurisdiction. This appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.