' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The predecessor of the petitioners filed an N.C.H. Form for the transfer of the house in dispute on 31-10-1966, under Settlement Scheme No, VIII, long after it had been put to auction (on 19-10-1960) and purchased by respondent No,
3. But the said respondent did not clear the balance of the auction price and the house was resumed on 19-6-1971. But he paid the balance amount on 8-7-1971, within one month of the order of resumption and the property was restored to him on 27-7-1971.
2. In the meanwhile, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners also deposited the transfer price of the house on 29-6-1968 and when the house was restored to respondent No, 3 lie challenged the order of restoration dated 27-7-1971.
3. The High Court has held that since the N.C.H. Form was not filed by the petitioners after the resumption of the property (which was ordered on (19-6-1971) and the respondent had paid the balance of the auction price within one month of the resumption, the order of restoration was in accordance with law. This view is challenged before us.
4 We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
5. We are inclined to agree with the High Court. The petitioners filed an N.C.H. Form under Settlement Scheme No, VIII on 31-10-1966, when the property was not available for transfer. It became "available" for transfer, for the first time, on 19-6-1971 when it was resumed on account of failure of the auction purchaser to pay the balance of the auction price. But since under the law he could get the said order rescinded if he paid the balance within one month of the order of resumption, the property was rightly restored to him on his depositing the balance amount on 8-7- 1971. The property not being "available" for transfer, it could not be transferred to the petitioners on their N.C.H. Form.