1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-The dispute relates to a bungalow at Jail Road, in Lahore. Half of this house was transferred to the petitioner on the 18th December 1959. The price fixed .For this portion was Rs.
2. 33,000 and the deferred payment of the petitioner in his Compensation Book Was Rs. 15,900. The petitioner failed to pay the price of the property within the pres--cribed time with the result that a demand notice dated 8th December 1965, under paragraph 2 of the Settlement Scheme No. 8 was served upon him on the 25th December 1965. On failure to pay a second demand notice under the said Scheme was issued to him on the 14th November 1967, asking him to pay the balance of Rs.
3. 17,100 within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice. It was stated in the notice that in default the appel--lant was liable to ejectment and his Provisional Transfer Order cancelled and the amount paid by him would be forfeited. This notice was served upon the petitioner on the 22nd of November 1967. The petitioner again failed to pay within the prescribed time with the result that the property stood resumed under Settle--ment. Scheme No. VIII. The petitioner not having filed any appeal or taken any proceedings against the order of resumption it became final under section 22 of the Displaced Persons (Com--pensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The petitioner submitted a Miscellaneous Application on the 24th November 1967, asking for time to pay the money on the ground that his compensation book had been lost. Obviously, this was an attempt to gain time for payment, inasmuch as the petitioner was asked to pay the balance of Rs.17,100 only which showed that adjustment of payment against the deferred amount of Rs. 15,900 as mentioned in his Compensation Book had already been made. The Additional Settlement Commissioner, however, passed an order staying recovery of the money due from the petitioner for a period of 10 weeks and this order was communicated to the petitioner on the 20th December 1967. The petitioner still made no pay--ment. Finally on the 23rd September 1969, the Chief Settlement Commissioner passed the following order on the petitioner's application :---- "I am not in favour of allowing such concession indefinitely. The request cannot be accepted. He should pay the entire amount due at once."
4. It appears that the petitioner was fully aware of this order and yet he did not pay the amount due from him. He made an applica--petition to the Settlement Commissioner (Urban), Lahore on the 24th September 1969, wherein he concealed the fact of resumption as well as the fact that he had submitted an application to the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Upon the basis of this application the petitioner obtained some order favourable to him. Subse--quently, however, when the concealment of facts became known, the property was put up to auction and it was sold to the highest bidder, namely, respondent No. 3, for a sum of Rs.63,100 and the auction was confirmed by- the Additional Settlement Commis--sioner on. The 2nd of October 1969. On the 8th of October 1969, the petitioner again applied to the Additional Settlement Commis--sioner for permission to deposit the balance of the transfer price. This application, too, contained certain misrepresentations. The application was rejected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 8-10-1969.
5. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 8,500 on 2-12-1969 and filed an appeal against the said auction and its confirmation but the appeal was dismissed by the Settle--ment Commissioner on the 24th January 1970, on the ground that the petitioner had no locus standi. The petitioner's writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on the 16th July 1971, and his Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed in limine.
6. Leave-refused,