1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-This petition has been filed for Special leave to appeal from an order of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dismissing in limine a settlement revision. The dispute in this case related to certain evacuee land which from the record appeared to have been originally allotted to one Rehmat A.I. The latter died on 4-5-65 but even after his death the land was confirmed in his name on 14-3-66.
2. Thereafter one Shaukat A.I claims to have purchased the land from Rehmat A.I and then sold it in his turn to the present petitioner by a deed of sale dated 12th of May 1969.
3. The Chief Settlement Commissioner held these transactions to be bogus, because the land could not have been confirmed in the name of a dead person and again a dead person could not have sold his land to anybody else. The alleged purchase of Shaukat A.I was after Rehmat A.I had died.
4. The entire transaction was, therefore, highly suspicious.
5. The Chief Settlement Commissioner set aside all these transactions and the High Court took the view that his order was unexceptional.
6. This petition is out of time by some 35 days and the explanation given for this delay is that the Copying Section did not give any notice of the date of delivery of the copy. Hence the delay.
7. It appears that although the judgment of the High Court was delivered on the 20th of January 1972, the petitioner waited till the 4th of March 1972, for applying for a copy. The copy was male ready on the 10th of April 1972, but was not taken delivery of till the 19th of May 1972, simply because no information was sent to the petitioner regarding the completion of the copy. We are not satisfied that this explanation is correct. It is extremely vague and noncommittal. The petitioner does not say as to why he waited till the 4th of March 1972, to apply for a copy nor does he say as to what steps he took even thereafter to pursue the matter in the Copying Section, knowing full well that he had allowed a great deal of time to elapse before applying for the copy. It is also not disclosed as to whether ordinary copies were applied for or urgent copies.
8. The long delay in applying for the copy seems to lead to the inference that the petitioner was not serious with regard to moving this Court, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case.
9. We are not, in the circumstances, satisfied that a case for condonation of the delay has been made out. This petition is accordingly dismissed as barred by time.
10. Learned counsel, however, states that there should be a direction on the Settlement Authorities to permit the petitioner to retain the land on payment of the market price, since he has already spent some amount on developing the same. If the scheme or the rules framed under the Land Settlement Act, 1958, as amended from time to time permit the retention of land acquired in such circumstances on payment, then the petitioner should apply to the Settlement Authorities for that purpose. No order of this Court is necessary.