' An allotment of land measuring 15 Kanals and 5 Marais situate at Mauza Karan, Tehsil and District Bahawalpur, was confirmed in favour of Mst. Khadija Begum. She sold the said land to the petitioner for consideration and Mutation No,530 was also sanctioned. On a Mukhbari application, the said allotment was cancelled on 8-4-1973 by the Settlement Authorities but on appeal the same was restored by order, dated 4-6-1973. Another Mukhbari application of one Ghulam Hussain was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 18.-12-1977 and his Writ Petition No,180-R of 1980/LHR was also dismissed by this Court on 3-4-1980. An F.I.R. Lodged by Ghulam Hussain against the husband of the petitioner was cancelled after due inquiry by the Martial Law Authorities. Out of the said land, the Punjab Government also acquired a land measuring 3 Kanals and 3 Marlas in the year 1972. However, another 4 Kanals and 14 Marlas out of the said land was also found to be the residual property and was included in the list of the properties to be auctioned. The auction of the aforesaid 4 Kanals and 14 Marlas of land took place on 14-10-1984. The petitioner filed an objection petition on the same day which was dismissed. The said land measuring 4 Kanals and 14 Marlas was, thus, finally auctioned by the A.D.C.(G)/Additional Settlement Commissioner, Bahawalpur, in favour of respondents Nos.3 to 7. The revision petitions filed by the petitioner before respondents Nos.1 and 2 were also dismissed by the impugned orders, dated 21-7-1985 and 20-8-1985. The earlier Writ Petition No,459-R of 1984/BWP was also dismissed by this Court by order, dated 12-6-1985 thereby declining to interfere with the order, dated 15-10-1984 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General)/Additional Settlement Commissioner on the objection application of the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the confirmation of the allotment of land was not in dispute and that the note by the A.D.C.(G) was just a proposal. The land measuring 4 Kanals and 14 Marlas was, therefore, not available for being auctioned.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos.3 to 7 argued that the respondents were the bona fide purchasers for value. They had purchased the property in an open auction held by the State functionaries and had also made the. Payment of the sale price.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The petitioner had agitated the grievance against the auction proceedings by means of Writ Petition No,459-R of 1984/BWP but the same was dismissed by order, dated 12-6-1985 passed by this Court. The petitioner also failed to get the final relief from the Honourable Supreme Court in C.P.S.L.A. No,897 of 1985. Subsequently, a revision petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the impugned order, dated 21-7-1985 on merits as well as being time-barred by the learned respondent No,1 . The findings of fact had also been recorded by the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, in the impugned order, dated 20-8-1985. The A.D.C.(G)/Additional Settlement Commissioner had recorded a finding of fact thereby cancelling the disputed area of 4 Kanals and 14 Marais from the name of the predecessor- in-interest of the petitioner as back as in 1969. In the presence of the cancellation order by the competent Authority, there was. No justification for the petitioner to have purchased the said area thereafter vide Mutation No,530, dated 29-9-1974. The petitioner could not claim a better title than the original allottee from whose name the land had already been cancelled. The property in dispute had already been auctioned to the respondents who had also constructed their buildings/houses thereon after having made the payment of the entire amount to the State. The impugned orders are just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the case and do not suffer from any jurisdictional or other legal defect so as to call for any interference.
4. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which is dismissed but with no order as to costs.