JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - The father of petitioner Buta Singh, who was a displaced person from village Hanuwala, Tehsil Minchanabad (Bhawalpur State) in Pakistan, claimed entitlement to allotment of land to the tune of 22 standard acres-15 unit. He, however, was allotted only 13 standard acres-11 unit till date. Accordingly, it is stated by the L.Rs. of the petitioner that there is still deficiency of 9 standard acres of land. 2. On 22.12.1998, the petitioner applied to the Managing Officer for making allotment of the balance land. This application was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had earlier agitated before the Managing Officer, but his application was declined on 26.6.1990. This order was passed on 8.10.2001. Petitioner filed revision before the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 7.7.2005 with a delay of more than three years. 3. While these proceedings were pending, the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 was repealed with effect from 1.12.2005. Another enactment in this regard was then legislated on 1.4.2009. Certain provisions were made for settlement of pending claims of the displaced persons. 4. Claim Commissioner dismissed the claim of the petitioner on 12.11.2009, against which he filed an appeal on 15.2.2010. The appeal was finally dismissed on 11.5.2010 and the petitioner has filed the present petition. 5. The petitioner apparently has disclosed the facts in a selective manner. Apparent aim is to hide the delay on his part to make claim about this allotment which is with a lot of delay. The reply would reflect the actual position in this case. The contents of the reply would show that the Managing Officer had initially passed the order on 26.6.1990. The petitioner filed another petition before the Managing Officer on 22.12.1998 after expiry of period of eight years. As per the respondents, such an application with delay was not maintainable on the ground that there is no provision for review of the earlier order. The petitioner still filed a revision on 7.7.2005 against the same, which was also with a delay of over three years. Revision was also, thus, badly time barred. 6. Reference is made to Rule 67-A of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. The petitioner still filed a revision on 7.7.2005 against the same, which was also with a delay of over three years. Revision was also, thus, badly time barred. 6. Reference is made to Rule 67-A of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. It is then disclosed that the petitioner initially had filed an application for allotment of land on 15.12.1988, which was rejected on 5.4.1989 by the Managing Officer on the ground that his case of allotment had already been decided by the Managing Officer on 12.4.1960. The second application on the same grounds was held not maintainable after a period of 28 years being in violation of rule of limitation laid down in Rule 67-A of the Rules. As per this Rule, the application by unsatisfied claimants could be made on or before 31.12.1963. 7. On similar issues, this court has already dismissed CWP No.1767 of 1987 on 22.9.2010 and CWP No.3142 of 1987, decided on 29.11.2010 on the ground of delay. This inordinate delay would deter me to entertain this writ petition. 8. The State counsel has also invited my attention to a recent decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Versus Har Dayal, [2010(1) Law Herald (SC) 116] : (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 394. The Hon’ble Court has held that the writ petition filed ought not to have been entertained and dismissed due to delay entailed in the case. There was 30 years delay on the part of the respondents therein in approaching the Court. This was also a case of refusal to allot the balance land, which had attained finality. It is observed that the case could not have been reopened after 4 years of verification of the claim and after 7 years of refusal to allot the land. In such a situation, question of allotment being right or wrong would not arise. 10. The delay in the present case is no less. Allotment was decided on 12.4.1960. Prayer for allotment was then rejected on 5.4.1989. This attempt was made after 28 years of the initial allotment. Yet another attempt is made in the year 1998. The ratio of law in Har Dayal’s case (supra) is fully attracted to the facts of the present case. 11. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed on this short ground. ---------0.B.S.0------------