Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 832 of 1974, decided on 14th November, 1979.

(On appeal from the order dated 27‑9‑1974 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in W.P. 918‑R/69).

‑‑‑ Ss. 3 & 5 & Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (LXVII of 1958), S. 10‑Laches‑Petitioner having knowledge of allotment of land in favour of respondent ten years ago‑and even having raised an objection to allotment and such being not accepted‑‑Petitioner, held, could not successfully contend for purpose of limitation to have had no knowledge of allotment of land in favour of respondent.[Laches].

Zafar Pasha Chaudhary, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Ahdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nerno for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 14th November, 1979.

‑This petition is directed against the order dated 27th September, 1974 passed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court whereby the petitioner's writ petition (W. P. No. 918‑R of 1969) was dismissed.

The facts briefly are that the petitioner is a refugee from East Punjab and abandoned some land, which is equivalent to 654 Produce Index Units. Out of this entitlement 454 Units were satisfied by allotment of some area in Village 284/HR, Tehsil Fort Abbas, District Bahawalnagar. For satis fying his remaining entitlement, according to the petitioner, he was pro posed on 4th March, 1958, Killa Nos. 19 and 20 of Square No, 15 in the same Village but that this area was not confirmed in his favour. These Killa numbers were in fact, subsequently confirmed in favour of Respon dent No. 1, Ghulam Nabi, on 28th February, 1959. At the time of this allotment the petitioner raised objections, which were turned down. The petitioner, however, does not appear to have been dispossessed from the area in question and he did not challenge the allotment in favour of Respondent No. 1 for nearly ten years. During this period the respondent obtained an order of ejectment on the basis that he was a tenant under him. Thereupon, the petitioner filed an appeal on the 14th of January, 1969 before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner against the confirmation of the area in question to the respondent, which was allowed on 13th May, 1969 on the ground inter alia that he was entitled to 'an allotment of 604 units out of which 454 units had only been satisfied. Aggrieved by the appellate order the respondent filed a revision before the Settlement Commissioner which was accepted by him vide his order dated 19th August, 1969 on the ground that there was no reason for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and that section 5 of the Limitation Act was not applicable to cases governed by the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958.

Dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner filed a writ petition (W. P. 918‑R/69) before the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed as already noted above. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

The grounds that were urged before the High Court have again been re‑iterated before us, namely, that the area originally proposed in the name of the petitioner was got deleted by the respondent in collusion with the local Patwari and that he had no knowledge of this action. Con sequently, the question of limitation did not arise. Moreso, the order of the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner confirming the area to the respondent, in the circumstances, in which it was made, was a void order. It was further submitted that the respondent had taken no steps to eject the petitioner and to interfere with the possession of the petitioner for a long period of ten years from which circumstance the inference was drawn that the respondent was not the rightful allottee.

We are afraid that these submissions cannot succeed and must fail on the same considerations which prevailed with the learned Judge, in the High Court, namely, that the petitioner was present when the allotment of the disputed area was made in favour of the respondent and he had even raised an objection to the allotment on that occasion which was not accepted. Hence he was fully aware of the order in favour of the respon dent. In these circumstances it could not be successfully contended by the petitioner that he had no knowledge of the allotment in favour of the respondent and, therefore, the finding of the learned Settlement Commis sioner that the appeal of the petitioner could not be accepted as it was hope lessly out of time was correct and we consider that the learned Judge in the High Court was right in not interfering with the said order.

The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed hereby.

Petition dismissed,

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.