1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.----The dispute in this case ralates to the transfer of a shop in Property Nos. 1067 and 1067/1 situate in Block No. 7, Chichawatni, District Sahiwal. This property is a composite property consisting on the ground-floor of three shops and a residential portion at its back and a chaubara on the first-floor. The three shops were in occupation of locals while the residential portion at the back was in possession of Respondents 3---6 who were claimants, while the upper por--tion was in possession of one Ghulam Mohammad, a non- claimant displaced person.
2. On the commencement of the Settlement operations, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sahiwal by his order dated 18th December 1959 transferred the entire property in favour of Respondents 3-6, who were claimants displaced persons and eliminated the local occupants of the shops. Ghulam Mohammad, non- claimant occupant of the chaubara was also eliminated. The transferees entered into an agreement of association with Mst. Ghulam Fatima, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners herein on 20th July, 1960 and surrendered their rights in respect of one shop in her favour. The agreement was duly approved by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and an amended P. T. O. Was issued on 21st July, 1960. In the meanwhile, Ghulam Mohammad, who felt dissatisfied with the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, had filed an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner but this was rejected by him on 13th April, 1961 and his revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner, Multan, was allowed on 9th September, 1961 and the chaubara in his possession was ordered to be retained by him, Respondents 3-6 thereupon challenged the transfer of chaubara to Ghulam Mohammad by a second revision before the Chief Settlement Commissioner.
3. During the pendency of the said second revision, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner bad made a report to the Settlement Commissioner that his order dated 9th September, 1961 was silent with regard to the three shops which were in possession of the locals and were not transferable to respondents 3--6. On 7th February, 1962, the Settlement Commissioner without summoning or hearing the affected parties (includ--ing petitioners) passed a supplementary order directing that the shops be included in the evacuee pool. The petitioners filed an application to be impleaded as a party in the second revision preferred by Respondents 3-6 as the transfer of the shop in their favour had been cancelled. This revision petition was dismissed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner wherein ha also observed that the association in favour of the petitioners was bad in law as the shops could not be transferred to non-occupants like respondents 3-6. The order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner was, in the first place, challenged by Respondents 3--6 by Writ Petition No. 1663-R of 1961 in the Lahore High Court which was dismissed on 14th October, 1966. The petitioners thereafter also filed a Writ Petition (W. P. No 40-R/67) to challenge the order of the Chief Settlement Commis--sioner but this too was dismissed by a learned Single Judge by his judg--ment dated 27th May, 1975 on two-fold grounds, namely, that the second writ petition was barred on the principle of resjudicata as the first writ petition by their predecessor- in-interest, from whom they derived title, was decided against them and secondly, though the associate was entitled to be heard before the adverse order was passed but if the associate chooses not to challenge the adverse orders within a reasonable time and waits for the result of the proceedings taken by his predecessor-in- interest he could not complain if the order subsequently goes against him. The writ petition of the petitioners herein suffers from inordinate delay for which the explanation offered was hardly tenable. This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the last mentioned order passed by the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court.
4. After hearing Ch. Qadir Bekhsh, learned counsel for the petitioners, we are inclined to agree with the view taken by the learned Judge in the High Court and are particularly inclined to agree with his view that the writ petition was liable to dismissal on the ground of laches. It has already been pointed out that the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner before whom the petitioners were parties was dismissed on 8th May, 1962. This order was challenged by a writ petition some five years later. It was clearly delayed inordinately and, therefore, barred by the principles of laches.
5. This petition must fail and is dismissed hereby.