KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-A plot which is the subject-matter of this petition was auctioned in favour of the respondents on 16th April 1960 who obtained its P. T. O. On 2nd August, 1960 and P. T. D.
L on 24November, 1960.
2. After the finalization of transfer in favour of the respondents, the present petitioner somewhere on 27th November, 1971 filed an appli--cation for claiming the plot. It was rejected by the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner--(as stated in para 16 of the present petition) on the same day namely 27th November, 1971 on the ground that the plot having already been disposed of it was no longer available for trans--fer. An appeal of the petitioner against the aforesaid order also met the same fate and was rejected by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner on 13th November. 1973. However, in his order aforesaid be said that it was an appeal against an order dated 8th March, 1972, whereby the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had rejected the petitioner's miscellaneous application dated 10th November, 1971. Be that as it may and without resolving this confusion the fact remains that the Additional Settlement Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.
3. The petitioner then filed a constitutional petition being W. P 1110-R of 1973 which was dismissed by the High Court on 12 November 1974. In the High Court the department had submitted are not in which they stated that the petitioner had filed an L H form on 12th June, 1966 under Settlement Scheme No. VIII and the learned Single Judge held that even by that date the property already stood finally disposed of in favour of the respondents and hence, the writ petition had no merit.th th
4. The petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to, this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he does not dispute the auction of the property in favour of the respondent but his case was that the aforesaid auction covered only a part of the property and not the whole. According to the learned counsel the aforesaid part of the property was still undisposed and as such should have been transferred to the petitioner howsoever belated his form may have been on the subject. The contention has no merit because we find that this point was never taken by the petitioner before the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner when he rejected his appeal on 13th November, 1973. This prayer was never contained in the various prayers mentioned in the writ petition in the High Court. It may be mentioned that in the High Court the petitioner had tried to rely upon some earlier form allegedly dated 27th January, 1960 which was dispens--ed by the department as having filed and finding of the High Court was that such a factual plea could not be gone in the course of writ jurisdiction, when the department had taken up an express stand that no such form existed on the record and that it was for the first time that on 12th June, 1966 an LH form was filed by which date the property stood already disposed of as above mentioned. As the petitioner is not disputing the auction any reference to any alleged form dated 27th January, 1960, from that point of view, even otherwise is useless.
6. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed hereby.