1. ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J: -- Imam Din, respondent, was a refugee from Hoshiarpur and in occupation of a plot measuring 10 Marlas in Jhang City. He applied for its transfer under Settlement Scheme No.VI on 7-3-1962. His Form bore No.2307. Without disposal of the form the plot was auctioned in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners namely Abdul Ghani on 29-6- 1970. The respondent had earlier filed an application for deletion of the plot from the list of auction which was dismissed on 27-6-1970 by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on the ground that his case was not covered by Settlement Scheme No.VIII. He filed a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner who vide his order, dated 9-3-1973 remanded the case for disposal of his form. In remand the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 4-1-1975 held that the respondent's form was not traceable and the copy of the report produced by the respondent signifying the entry of Form No.2307 on 7-3-1962 did not show that the delay in submitting the form had been condoned by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The respondent challenged the order before the Settlement Commissioner who vide order dated 12-4-1975 dismissed the same on the ground that that was not a pending case on 30-6-1974 when the relevant law was repealed. The respondent filed a Writ Petition No.867-R of 1975. The learned Single Judge observed that `it is obvious that an entry was made of the petitioner's (present respondent) form under Settlement Scheme No. VI at No.2307 on 7-3-1962. In the presence of a certified copy from the office of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Deputy Settlement Commissioner, to whom the case had been remanded could not have considered the form to have been non--existent merely because the record was not available. Similarly his finding that the delay in submission of the form was not condoned is also based on the absence of the record rather than any positive material. The record was obviously not in possession of the petitioner. He produced whatever material was available with him and since this material came from official source it cannot be rejected unless it was shown that this was a forgery which of course was not done in the present case'. He thus set aside the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 4-1-1975. This is vide order of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 6-11-1985. '
2. The heirs of the auction-purchaser have applied for leave to appeal against the said order of the learned Single Judge.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that there was no proof for filing of the form by the respondent and the auction in favour of the predecesor-in-interest has rightly been maintained under the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 4-1-1975.
4. The respondent has proved the filing of the form by production of the receipt as well as the certificate from the relevant official authorities that he had filed the form. He could do no more. If the authorities were not able to trace the form, it was not fault of the respondent. Documents filed in public offices have to be kept in safe custody by the authorities and for their lack of proper care citizens cannot be made to suffer. An occupant having been settled, there is no justification to reopen the matter on the motion of the heirs of the auction-- purchaser The petition has no merit and is, therefore, dismissed.