1. M. R. KHAN, J.-The dispute in this case relates to the premises of Desraj Dinanath Rice Mills situated in Tehsil Bazar, Sialkot. The petitioners who are 25 in number and who are refugees from the State of Jammu and Kashmir claim that they have been occupying different portions of the said premises by erecting kacha hutments thereon. The said property was, however, transferred to S. Mukhtar Hussain (respondent No. 4 herein) as an unregistered factory by the Additional Settlement Commissioner by his order, dated the 21st March 1960. The petitioners filed a time-barred appeal against the transfer of the property in favour of the respondent No. 4, although they themselves had not filed any forms under Scheme No. IV, applicable to displaced persons from the State of Jammu and Kashmir. This Appeal was dismissed on the 16th April 1965 on the ground that it was hopelessly barred by time and that the petitioners themselves had not filed any forms for transfer.
2. The petitioners then went up in revision. The revisional authority held that the premises was an unregistered factory and the petitioners who have been living in the hutments raised in the compound of the factory have no locus standi in the matter. Accordingly, the revisional application was dismissed on the 10th December 1965. Thereafter, the petitioners kept quiet for about four years, but it was only on the 7th November 1969 that they made a writ petition in the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, challenging the various orders of the settlement authorities, including the order transferring the property in favour of respondent No. 4. A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition both on the merits and on the ground of laches on the part of the petitioners. A Letters Patent Appeal taken against the decision of the learned Judge was dismissed in limine. The petitioners now seek special leave against the judgment and order dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal.
3. It is factually correct that the petitioners made the writ petition about four years after the dismissal of their revision by the Settlement Commissioner. The High Court was, therefore, right in its view that there was serious laches on the part of the petitioners. The petitioners did not file any form under Scheme No. IV as applicable to them. The hutments raised by them on different portions of the premises of the factory are kacha premises. The Settlement authorities, however, have held that the disputed property in its entirety is an unregistered factory. This means that the mere construction of some kacha hutments does not change the character of the property as determined by the Settlement authorities. Accordingly, it was rightly held that the petitioners have no entitlement to the property dispute. Nor are they entitled to any protection from ejectment, because the hutments are kacha hutments and section 30 (5) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act granting protection to the refugees possession of houses and shops, was repealed by the Ordinance No. XIII of 1964.
4. There is no merit in this petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.