1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-- Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 27-1-1981 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Constitutional petition arising out of an urban settlement case, was dismissed.
2. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the house in dispute since 1954. According to his learned counsel he also filed an application for transfer of this house in 1959 but no action was taken on that transfer form. During the settlement operation the house was put to auction but later on it was cancelled. Learned counsel does not know the facts and circumstances of the auction or its cancellation. The house was thereafter transferred to Ghulam Rasool respondent No.3 to whom transfer order was issued in November 1977. Learned counsel also does not know about the facts and circumstances relating to the transfer of the house to respondent No.3. It was against this transfer that the petitioner filed a revision petition in 1979 which having been dismissed by a Settlement Commissioner by order, dated 1-8-1979, he brought it under challenge in Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court on 25-1-1981. The ground urged before the High Court was that the N, C . H . Forms filed by the petitioner could not have been disposed of or ignored without affording hearing to the petitioner. The writ petition was dismissed with the following observations: "According to the showing of the petitioner himself he was not given the house but it was put to auction. When that happened, it was for the petitioner to have moved in the matter. The contention that the petitioner did not know of the auction and that the auction had been cancelled, would not lead to an inference that the petitioner continued to wait for the disposal of his NCH form which must have been filed around 1959 if at all for the next 20 years until 1979 when he filed the revision petition. The petitioner has been a Patwari and would know that if he had filed a N.C.H. Form and that had not been accepted, he should take steps to agitate for his rights. It is unbelievable that for 20 years the petitioner could take no steps to seek the transfer if he was entitled or otherwise interested."
3. All this furnished sufficient material for declining relief to the petitioner in the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, on account of his own conduct. In addition it needs to be remarked that this petition is not properly documented. All the facts and circumstances were neither placed before the High Court nor before this Court. This petition accordingly is dismissed.