1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought against the dismissal of petitioner's constitutional petition by the High Court, in a matter dealt with under the Land Revenue Act, by the Revenue authorities.
2. ' As stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Rashtool Khan, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 3 to 18, a Lambardar was declared defaulter in land revenue. His land was proposed to be sold as means of recovery of the amount. Accordingly, an auction was held wherein the petitioner was the highest bidder. It is further stated that although the proceedings of auction were to be sent to the Commissioner for confirmation, on account of innocent mistake, they were completed/concluded at a lower level and thus the mutation was also attested in favour of the petitioner. The respondents' side according to the learned counsel, filed a suit challenging the auction proceedings and obtained a temporary injunction which was set aside by the appellate Court. The respondents' revision in the High Court, however, was withdrawn presumably because their grievance was removed by the Board of Revenue setting aside the auction, through an ex parte order. The petitioner's review before the Board of Revenue having failed, he filed a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed. He has now sought leave to appeal.
3. As analysed by the learned counsel, the reasons which prevailed with the Board of Revenue passing the order impugned before the High Court were: that no report was submitted to the Commissioner nor did he confirm the auction as required by S. 102/104 of the Land Revenue Act; the District Collector was not competent to confirm the auction; and, no sale certificate was issued.
4. When questioned as to whether by acceptance of petitioner's writ petition on the grounds urged before the High Court regarding (mainly) the conduct of the respondents and the proceedings initiated by them, was it proper for the High Court to restore the proceedings and orders set aside by the Board of Revenue, which were obviously illegal, he frankly stated that the mistakes committed by the staff lower to the Commissioner, were innocent mistakes. Be that as it may, without giving any verdict with regard to the bona fides or otherwise of the mistakes, they did amount to illegalities which keeping in view the purpose of the relevant provisions, were very serious. Therefore, the High Court was fully justified in case like the present one not to exercise the writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner who was seeking the restoration of illegal proceedings and orders. This petition fails. Therefore, leave to appeal is refused.