1. DORAB PATEL, J.-The petitioners are refugees from India and on their migration, they had illegally settled on Government land in Multan. There--fore, on the promulgation of Martial Law in October, 1958, they shifted from the land illegally occupied by them to another site in Multan. However this land too was occupied by them illegally. They claim, however, to have constructed shops on it and to have paid rent first to the Settlement Depart--ment and then to the Evacuee Trust Board. They further claim to have applied for the transfer to them of the land in their occupation, because, according to Mr. Inayat Hussain some of the petitioners at least were claimants displaced persons.
2. However, their claim was rejected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. Multan, by his order dated 17-2-1965. And, as the Deputy Settlement Commissioner further directed that the lands occupied by the petitioners should be auctioned, they were auctioned to the seventh respondent on 28-11-1967. This auction was confirmed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 9-12- 1967. Meanwhile the petitioners had filed an appeal against the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order of 17-2-1965, but this appeal was dismissed for default on 15-12-1966, therefore, they had filed a second appeal which was heard and dismissed on 5-3-1968. They had then filed a revision which was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner on 17-1-1969. They had then challenged the orders of the Settlement Department in a writ petition but as the writ petition was dismissed on 18-11-1974, they have filed this petition for leave.
3. In dismissing the revision petition of the petitioners, the Settlement Commissioner has pointed out in his order of 17-1-1959 that their first appeal had been dismissed on 15-12-1966, and that without applying for its restora--tion, they .Had filed a second appeal before the same Court which was dismissed on 5-3-1968, therefore, the Settlement Commissioner went on to observe "the petitioners do not seem to have got any locus standi to come up in a revision". We agree with this observation and this by itself is fatal to the petition for leave.
4. However, Mr. Inayat Hussain submitted that the petitioner's real griev--ance was that their claim form had not been disposed of, but in his order of 17-2-1965, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner pointed out "the present applicants have not filed their transfer applications forms within the prescribed date." Similarly, in dismissing their revision, the Settlement Commissioner observed: "they were never candidates for the transfer of this property nor did they ever apply for the transfer of the plot under the relevant scheme". Accordingly, on this ground also, the Settlement Commissioner observed that they had no locus standi to challenge the auction in favour of the seventh respondent. In view of these categorical findings that the petitioners had never applied for the transfer to them the land in their Possession, we invited learned counsel to refer us to some documentary evidence such as the receipts of the Settlement Department, which could satisfy us that the petitioners had filed claim forms. Learned counsel was not able to refer us to any evidence, therefore, it is not possible for him to challenge the concurrent findings of the Settlement Department that the petitioners had never filed any claim forms and as they had never filed any claim forms, they had no locus standi to approach the High Court or this Court for relief.
5. Mr. Inayat Hussain then stated that although the land in dispute was a Government land, it had been leased to an evacuee, therefore, the lease--hold interest was evacuee and had passed to the Settlement Department. This argument would have been relevant if the petitioners had filed claim form for the land in dispute for the period of the lease in favour of the evacuee, but as they had unable to prove that they had filed claim forms, this submission is without merit and the petition is therefore, dismissed.