1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.----This petition for special leave to appeal seeks to call in question an order made by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 6th February 1972, whereby a con-- stitution petition instituted by the petitioner in respect of the transfer of property No. 1031/X situate outside Lohari Gate, Multan, was dismissed.
2. The petitioner is a local and claims to have been in possession of the property under an allotment made in his favour in 1960, although the allotment order was not produced before the Settle--ment Authorities or the High Court. He applied for the transfer of the property in form L. H., on the assumption that it was a house. This application was rejected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on the 10th of January 1960, on the ground that the petitioner had not filed a declaration of eligibility, as was then required under the relevant instructions in respect of local applicants. The property was then put to auction as a shop and purchased by Abdul Haq respondent No. 4 on the 21st of May 1960. A notice of transfer was served on the petitioner on the 8th of July 1960, as required by section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. Abdul Haq thereafter instituted ejectment proceedings against the petitioner, but the same were dismissed for non-prosecution. However, the petitioner had filed a written statement in the Court of the Rent Controller on the 27th of November 1965. On the 25th of July 1967, the petitioner executed a rent-note in favour of Abdul Haq, and another rent-note in favour of respondents Nos. 5 to 7 on the 20th of December 1967.
3. On the 14th of February 1967, the petitioner once again approached the Settlement Authorities for the transfer of the property on the ground that his L. H. Form was still pending. This fresh application of the petitioner was rejected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on the 9th of March 1967, on the ground that the property had already been auctioned. His appeal was dismissed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 11th of May 1967, on the ground of limitation. His revision petition met the same fate by the order of the Settle--ment Commissioner dated the 17th of April 1969. This officer observed that the petitioner had slept over the matter for more than seven years since his L. H. Form was first rejected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in 1960, and it could not be believed that he did not have any knowledge of the auction of the property in favour of the respondents.
4. While dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner, the High Court has upheld the finding of the Settlement Authorities that the petitioner had indeed slept over his rights for a period of seven years, during which he had acquired knowledge of the transfer of the property to the respondents and had acknowledged them as landlords. The High Court has also observed that the property having been found to be a shop by the Settlement Authorities, and the petitioner not having produced the allotment order in support of his contention that the premises were allotted to him as a house, the same could not be transferred to him as he was a local.
5. The main ground on which leave to appeal is sought is that the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner, who rejected the L. H. Form of the petitioner on 10th January 1960, committed a legal error as the filing of the declaration of eligibility was not a requirement under the relevant provisions of the Act, and that in fact these departmental instructions were withdrawn in 1961. It is submitted that in these circumstances it was the duty of the Settlement Authorities to review the order of the Deputy Settle--ment Commissioner dated 10th January 1960. It is also contended that the finding that the premises were a shop and not a house is erroneous, as the two rooms on the first floor have been continuously used by the petitioner for residential purposes.
6. There is no merit in these submissions. Even if the order made by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 10th January 1960 was erroneous in law, it could not reasonably be set aside after the lapse of more than seven years, during which period, the property had been transferred to the respondents as a shop and the petitioner had acknowledged the respondents as his landlords by executing two rent-notes after facing proceedings of ejectment before the Rent Controller. The Settlement Authorities were, therefore, clearly right in refusing to reopen the matter after the lapse of this long period, for which the petitioner had no satis--factory explanation to offer. It is conceded that even the requirement regarding the declaration of eligibility had been withdrawn as long ago as 1961, and that the petitioner had reagitated the matter only in 1967.
7. Further, it is also clear that the premises having been held to be a shop by the Settlement Authorities, the petitioner, as a local, was not entitled to their transfer. The mere fact that be was residing in the two rooms on the first floor would not convert the premises into a house for the benefit of a local. The learned fudge in the High Court has taken note of the fact that in the relevant municipal records the property has been described as a shop. There was, thus, no ostensible error in the finding of fact recorded by the Settlement Authorities regarding the nature of the premises.
8. For all these reasons, we see no merit in this petition and accordingly dismiss the same.