A residential plot measuring 2 Kanals 17 Marlas situated in Nankana Sahib, District Sheikhupura, was auctioned for a sum of Rs,10,700. It was purchased by the Lahore-Harike Motor Transport Company Ltd. The said auction was, however, not confirmed by the auction committee on the ground that the price was not paid as warranted by law. This order of the auction committee was challenged by respondent No,1 by filing a revision petition before the learned Settlement Commissioner. During the hearing, an offer was made by respondent No,1 to make up the deficiency in the payment of the price of the plot in question. The offer was accepted and in consequence, an additional sum of Rs,12,000 was directed to be paid by respondent No,1 within seven days. This additional amount was never deposited by respondent No,1 and as a result thereof, the plot in question was re-auctioned. In the re-auction, the said plot was purchased by Ghulam Rasool, predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner, for a sum of Rs,30,000. The entire auction-price was paid by the petitioner and in the result, the PTD in that behalf was issued by the Department in his favour on 26-3-1968. Thus the ownership rights of the plot in question were given to the petitioner by the Settlement Department. It may be mentioned here that after about eleven years, the deficiency in the auction price was made up by the respondent No,1. As already observed above, in the meantime, the property stood permanently transferred to Ghulam Rasool, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and, as such, it was not at all available to be given to any body else. This petition has been moved by the petitioner on the ground that he is the bona fide purchaser of the property in question for valuable consideration. It is contended by the learned counsel that issuance of any title deed in favour of respondents was not called for inasmuch as the property was not available for its sale at the relevant time. He further argues that on realizing their mistake, the title documents having been issued in this behalf were cancelled by the Department.
For all intents and purposes, the title documents pertaining to the property in question having been issued to the petitioner would hold the field. Rana Abdul Raheem Khan, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, however, submits that his clients are not at fault inasmuch as they purchased the property from respondent No,1 and also deposited a sum of Rs,3,686 on 9-9-1974 in favour of the Settlement Department. He further says that a sum of Rs,12,000 a shortfall in the auction-price was also paid by them in the year 1974. On these premises, the learned counsel argues that the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 became the full owners of the property in question. The payment of the aforesaid money to the concerned quarters was not disputed by the parties and their learned counsel.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the record. There is no substance in the argument of learned counsel for the contesting respondent to claim the ownership of the plot because the property in question was not available for its transfer to them at the relevant time. Admittedly, they purchased the property in question from respondent No,1 whose title itself was not above-board because the auction in favour of respondent No,1 was never confirmed and on the contrary the property was re-auctioned and was purchased by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. As already stated, the said auction was confirmed and PTD in that behalf was also issued to the petitioner. This being so, the title documents issued in favour of the respondents were defective in law on the very face of record. In this view of the matter, the issuance of transfer order in favour of respondent No,1 subsequent to issuance of PTD in favour of predecessor-in- interest of the petitioner shall be deemed to have been issued without lawful authority and as such those title documents were rightly recalled by the Settlement Department. This petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed without any order as to costs by declaring the impugned order and other actions of the respondents without lawful authority.
' However, at the same time, as requested by the learned counsel for the parties, it can be observed that respondents Nos.2 and 3 were the bona fide purchasers of the property in question from respondent No,1 for valuable consideration and they also gave a sum of Rs,3,686 to the Settlement Department in lieu of grant of proprietary rights to them apart from other amounts. A request has been made by the learned counsel that a direction may be issued to the Settlement Department to transfer them some other available land against the price already paid by them. Mr. Farooq Bedar, learned Additional Advocate-General, Ch. Qadir Bakhsh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ch. Muhammad Hassan, learned counsel for respondent No,1 would have no objection if the relief asked for by the learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3 is granted to them. In the circumstances, a direction shall issue to the Notified Officer, Sheikhupura, to sell a piece of available land to contesting respondents Nos.2 and 3 against the price already received by the Settlement Department in the year 1974.