1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 26 May, 1975 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed and the orders passed by the Settlement Authorities were upheld.
2. ' The dispute relates to a plot measuring 35' x 98' in Khasra No. 1983 with an area of 9 Kanals 1 marla situate in Chak No. 212/RB, then District Lyallpur. The appellants who claim themselves to be displaced persons were in possession of the said plot and according to them had constructed 8 rooms thereon with an investment of Rs. 50,000. It is contended on their behalf that the said plot was auctioned on 16 April, 1970 by the Settlement Department. The appellants participated in the auction and offered the highest bid of Rs. 5,860. The auction of the said plot was confirmed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner Lyallpur on 17 April, 1970 and the appellants paid 1/4th of the auction money. Thereafter, instead of depositing the total remaining amount of auction money within 30 days they only deposited two instalments of Rs. 300 each and thereafter defaulted in the payment of the remaining price. On account of their default the site in question was reauctioned on 19 March, 1971 and it was purchased by the respondents for Rs. 5,780 who paid the total amount according to the terms and conditions of the auction which was confirmed on 5 June, 1971 and they were issued P.T.D. Accordingly. The appellants challenged the reauction of the said site in favour of the respondents by way of an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner filed on 25 August, 1971, but it was dismissed on 18 May, 1973 by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on merits as well as being time-barred. Thereafter they challnged the aforesaid order in the form of revision which was dimsissed by the Settlement Commissioner on 18 March 1974 on the ground that the appellants did not deposit the full auction money within 30 days and therefore the plot in question was reauctioned and was purchased by the respondents who had paid the entire transfer price and had been issued P.T.D. The orders of the Settlement Authorities were challenged by the appellants by way of writ petition which was dismissed on 26 May, 1975 by the learned Single Judge, as stated above for the following reasons:-- "The petitioner knew that he had committed default in payment of the price, therefore, he could foresee that at any time his auction may be cancelled. He therefore should have been on his guard to know if the property had been cancelled and was being re-auctioned. As has been mentioned above, there were further remedies open to him to apply to the authorities for giving him time to deposit the remaining price under sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph 3-A, but he did not avail of that provision of law also. Now it is too late for him to challenge the order when the P.T.D.
3. Has been issued and has failed to show that it has not become final. If it had been shown that the P.T.D. Was issued in the pendency of any appeal or revision it could be said that it had not attained finality."
4. Leave to appeal was granted in this case in order to consider firstly as to whether under Chapter II, para. 2 of Settlement Scheme No. VIII it was incumbent upon the Settlement Authorities to serve a notice on the appellants of cancellation of the auction in their favour and that since this had not been done, the reauction was illegal; and secondly as to whether without prior legal resumption of the plot in dispute could it be considered as available for re-auction and a fresh transfer.
5. ' It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that they being displaced persons were in occupation of the plot in question since partition and that they had invested so much money on the same by constructing 8 rooms thereon. It was submitted that they had participated in the first auction and gave the highest bid. Thereafter, they made payment of some amount towards the auction money. It was argued that if they had not made the complete payment within 30 days as required under the terms and conditions of the said auction, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner without serving any notice upon the appellants of cancelling the auction in their favour and without passing any resumption order could not reauction the said plot. In support of his arguments reliance was placed on Chapter II, para. 2 of Settlement Scheme No. VIII (reconstituted in 1973) which runs as follows:-- "An Additional Settlement Commissioner (Industries), or the Deputy Settlement Commissioner concerned, as the case may be, will serve a Demand Notice upon a transferee of a property who has failed to pay two consecutive instalments or, if no instalments had been allowed to him, has defaulted in payment of transfer price due from him, requiring him to pay the whole outstanding amount within a period of thirty days from the date of issue of the Demand Notice. The Demand Notice will be issued by registered post acknowledgment due. Acknowledgment receipt, when received from the addressee will be pasted on the file of the Demand Notice, as provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, may be made."
6. ' It was argued by the learned counsel that the transfer in favour of the appellants could be cancelled only if the above provisions had been complied with, which was not done in the instant case and therefore the reauction was illegal and liable to be set aside. It was next contended that when no order had been passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner of the resumption of the said plot, it was not available for reacution under Settlement Scheme No. VIII and for a fresh transfer. In support of this argument reliance was placed on 1975 SCM R 153 Ghaus Muhammad v.
7. Sh. Safdar Ali etc. ' Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the appellants had defaulted in making the complete payment of auction money within 30 days and in such circumstances no notice of cancellation or resumption was required to be served on them under the law and that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was competent to reauction the property without cancelling the auction or resuming the disputed plot under the terms and conditions of the auction published in the auction schedule. The condition of the auction sale was that the purchaser must deposit the balance amount within 30 days. The demand notice was issued in the name of the appellants and it was after the service of the said demand notice that they deposited Rs. 600 towards the auction money. Thereafter, no subsequent order was necessary in the case. It was also pointed out that the case of the appellants throughout was that the disputed plot belonged to the Provincial Government and that it could not be put into auction pool. If this was the position then how could the appellants themselves participate in the auction in the first instance. If was argued that the respondents made full payment within the prescribed period for the plot in question on the reauction as it was available and they had been issued P.T.D. That being so the appellants had no locus standi to challenge the reauction in favour of the respondents particularly when their contention was that the said plot belonged to the Provincial Government and was not evacuee property. It was also submitted that the appeal of the appellants was rejected on merits as well as barred by time and they had not submitted an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of the delay before the Additional Settlement Commissioner.
8. ' We have heard learned counsel for both the sides at some length. It appears that when the appellants made a bid for the plot in question in 1970, Settlement Scheme No. VIII as amended upto 1965 was in the field. Part V of the said Scheme deals with the mode of payment and forfeiture on default of available evacuee property which was to be sold in an auction. Para. 21 under that part reads as follows:-- "If the successful bidder fails to pay the balance within 30 days as aforesaid the acceptance of his bid shall stand cancelled and the amount of earnest money and the other amount equal to twenty-five per cent of the bid money shall also stand forfeited. If the defaulter is a claimant necessary debit entries will be made in his Compensation/Rehabilitation Book in accordance with the procedure laid down in para. 19."
9. Since this provision was in force at that time when the appellants participated in the first auction, on their default, the acceptance of their hid automatically stood cancelled. In the circumstances the concerned authorities were under no obligation to serve a demand or cancellaition notice or to pass a resumption order. The admitted position is that the appellants were defaulters and they did not pay the full amount of auction money within 30 days. The provisions of para. 2, Chapter II of Settlement Scheme No. VIII are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Furthermore, since no resumption order was to he passed in the circumstances of the case the subsequent auction in favour of the respondents was quite legal. The facts of the case cited by the learned counsel for the appellants are distinguishable and the law laid down therein is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
10. ' In the light of the above discussion we do not find any substance in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed with costs.