KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.--The dispute in this case is about a pro--perty bearing No. P. 1094, situated at Saidpur Road, Rawalpindi, which was transferred to respondents Nos.4-5 herein in open auction on 6-9-1960, as erstwhile evacuee property. The petitioner, who is a local, alleges to have bled an L H Form on 10-11-1959 which was followed by another application dated 30-1-1960, claiming transfer of this property. His application was rejected on 29-11-1960. It is admitted that the petitioner did .Not challenge aforesaid order but instead filed an appeal against the order of the transfer or to be more precise auction dated 6-9-1960 in favour of the respondents, without any success as the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner on 3-3- 1966.
2. The petitioner filed a Settlement Revision which was accepted on 15-4-1967 by the learned Settlement Commissioner who remanded the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for fresh adjudication of the matter. The latter after remand, on 5-2-1969 (again) rejected the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner filed on appeal which was dismissed on 5-7-1969 and his Settlement Revision thereafter also met the same fate and was dismissed on 13-2-1970. The petitioner at that juncture filed a constitutional petition being W. P. No. 630-R/70 which also brought no fruit and was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 4-7-1975. The petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
3. Learned counsel tried to argue that the transfer of the property by auction without disposal of his form was not justified. The contention has no merit. It is not denied that the petitioner was a local and the transfer of a property to a local depended upon existence or fulfilment of certain conditions precedent, e.g., value of property, nature of property, etc. Etc. The property in dispute was at the relevant time duly published in the auction list for disposal by auction, and it has not been pleaded before us that the petitioner filed any application for its deletion from that list. Not only that but when the form of the petitioner was rejected on 29-11-1960, he did not file any appeal or revision against the same in any Court. In the circum stances it is not possible for us to interfere with the orders of the Settlement Authorities which at all relevant levels (as above-mentioned) held that they petitioner was not entitled for the transfer of this property.
4. When confronted with this situation learned counsel submitted that his client filed another form on 30-10-1966 after enforcement of Settlement Scheme No. VIII if not under the earlier law, it was argued, then at least under the aforesaid Scheme the locals were made eligible for the transfer of shops and houses. It was submitted that in this context his form dated 30.1-1960 under that Scheme should have been taken into consideration and accepted. This plea also has no merit. It is well known that the Settlement Scheme No. VIII applied only to an "available property" and at the time when the petitioner filed arm on 30-10-1966, the property was not available because it stood transferred in the name of auction purchaser as above mentioned. Learned Counsel argued that the transfer from the name of the auction purchaser had been cancelled on 24-4-1968 as he had failed in paying the requisite price in time and, therefore, the property had become available. He, however, conceded that at that time the auction purchaser had taken up the matter to the higher authorities and the case for examining the validity of cancellation of his transfer was sub-judice. In that view of the matter to say that the property had become available is not justified. The last point argued by the learned counsel was that the High Court in its impugned order has assumed that property in dispute was a "shop" whereas in the earlier order of remand passed by the Settlement Commissioner on 15-4-1967, the property was held and described as a "house". He submitted that the order of the High Court which suffers from the aforesaid misreading of record is liable to be set aside on this short ground. The contention has no merit. Even if this property be considered as a house as the petitioner himself did not file any appeal against the rejection of his form on 29-11- 1960, any subsequent efforts to overcome his aforesaid failure can obviously be of no use to him.
5. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.