1. ' SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-The petitioner is a non-claimant and he has been aggrieved by the order of a learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissing his writ petition on the ground of ladies.
2. ' It appears that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 31st of December 1959, had divided the house in dispute into two portions, and gave one portion to respondent No, 5 and the other to one Tufail Hussain, who is not a party before us. The respondent No, 4 preferred an appeal from this order before the Additional Settlement Commissioner but the appeal was compromised between respondents Nos. 4 and 5, and an order was passed accordingly on the 11th of February 1960. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner but it was dismissed on the 7th of October 1960. He filed a revision before the Settlement Commissioner and it was ultimately rejected on the 3rd of May 1961. His review petition, too, met with same fate. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred a second revision before the Chief Settlement Commissioner and it was dismissed on the 15th of February 1962. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court as late as the 13th of December, 1965. The only explanation for the delay furnished by the petitioner was that he had approached the President of Pakistan on three occasions, namely, on the 9th of May 1962, 23rd of October 1963 and lastly on the 23rd of July 1964, and as a result of these representations A the Government had referred the matter to the Settlement Authorities for comments and it was only on the 27th of September 1965, that the Settlement Commissioner refused to exercise his power of suo motu revision.
3. 'Obviously the explanation is wholly unsatisfactory inasmuch as the petitioner had exhausted his remedies under the Settlement laws on the 15th of February 1962, and should not have waited till the 13th of December 1965, to file the writ petition.
4. ' The decision reported in 1972 SCMR 111 which has been cited before us by the petitioner does not apply to the facts of the present case.
5. ' We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. The High Court has correctly exercised its discretion in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches. The petition is accordingly dismissed.