Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeal No. 43‑Q of 1983, heard on 26th April, 1986.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Baluchistan at Quetta in Constitutional Petition No. 11 of 1974, dated 11th April, 1982).

‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Laches‑‑Dismissal of writ petition on ground of laches‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine plea that appellants continued to pursue their remedy and assert their rights until filing of Constitutional petition and consequently High Court erred. in holding that they were guilty of laches.

‑‑Art. 199‑‑Dismissal of writ petition on grounds of laches‑‑Orders of Member, Board of Revenue challenged in writ jurisdiction after lapse of about four years‑‑Appellants showing that they had filed revision petition before Commissioner and it was immediately after its dismissal that they filed Constitutional petition in High Court and thus were not guilty of laches Complaint also made that various documents and pleas raised by respondents had been ignored by High Court‑‑Appeal was allowed in circumstances and case remanded to High Court for fresh decision on merits‑‑Parties were to be at liberty to raise any plea available to them and also to file additional documents, if any, in support of their respective submissions.

Muhammad Nawaz Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Yakub K . Eusufzai, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.

Respondents No. 1 and 2: " Ex Parte.

Basharutullah, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 3 to 6.

Date of hearing: 26th April, 1986.

This appeal by leave is directed against the judgment of Baluchistan High Court, Quetta, dated 11‑4‑1982 dismissing a constitutional petition filed by the appellants.

The dispute in the case relates to Lawara land situated between Sanjavi and Bori Tehsils of District Loralai. It seems that originally there was dispute between two tribes, namely, Utmankhail. tribe of Tehsil Bori and Domar tribe of Tehsil Sanjavi which finally culminated in decision, dated 5‑5‑1896 whereby the disputed land was divided between the two tribes with reference to the Pasraliar (passage) running through it. The Domars were given the land situated to the west of the passage and Utmankhails were given the land situated to the east of the passage. However, in the settlement operations in the year 1966, Khasras Nos. 1355 and 1356 were entered in the revenue record as the property of two persons, namely, Makhter and Sardar Muhammad Usman who then transferred the two Khasra numbers in favour of respondents Nos. 4 to 6 herein, under mutation, dated 20‑5‑1967.

The present proceedings commenced on an application filed by one Malik Rahim Dil and 36 others on 17‑7‑1968 addressed to the Commissioner, Quetta Division by which it was prayed that the mutation in favour of the above two persons be cancelled as the tribe, as a whole, had the proprietary right in the land. Learned Commissioner treating the application as a revision application under the Frontier Crimes Regulation, remanded the case to the District Magistrate, Loralai "with direction that the case shall be referred to a strong and impartial Jirga which should sift the case in the light of the old revenue record and old decisions and try to bring the parties to an amicable settlement."

On remand of the case, the Deputy Commissioner, Loralai drew up proceedings under the Frontier Crimes Regulation and appointed Jirga, which ultimately passed an award against the appellants. The appellants and other members of the tribe challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner accepting the award, before the Commissioner, but their revision application was dismissed. This order was also upheld by the Board of Revenue, and appellants' revision application was dismissed on 15‑8‑1970. Appellants then filed a revision application against the order, dated 20‑5‑1967 passed by the Settlement Officer/ Collector, Quetta, whereby the disputed Khasra numbers were ordered to be recorded in the record‑of‑rights in favour of respondents Nos. 4 to 6, but this revision application was dismissed by the Commissioner by the order, dated 27‑8‑1974.

It was thereafter that the appellants filed a constitutional petition in Baluchistan High Court on 9‑9‑1974 which was dismissed by the impugned judgment as stated earlier.

The main ground on which the constitutional petition was dismissed by the High Court was that appellants, in the opinion of the learned Judges of the Division Bench who heard the constitutional petition were guilty of laches, in that, they had challenged the impugned order of the Member, Board of Revenue, dated 7‑10‑1970 as late as 9‑9‑1974 and had thus slept over their rights.

Leave to appeal was granted by this Court in order to examine the plea raised on behalf of the appellants that they "continued to pursue their remedy and assert their rights until filing of the constitutional petition and consequently the learned Judges of the High Court have erred in holding that they were guilty of laches".

In support of the aforesaid submission it was pointed out that appellants had filed a revision application under section 16 before the Commissioner, Quetta Division, on 10‑10‑1970 which was dismissed on 27‑8‑1974 and it was immediately thereafter on 9‑9‑‑1974 that appellants filed the constitutional petition in the High Court and they, therefore, cannot be held guilty of laches. There is force in this submission'. On the other hand learned counsel for the private respondents also complains that 'various documents and pleas raised by the respondents have also been ignored by the High Court.

In the circumstances, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remand the case to the High Court for fresh decision on merits in accordance with law. The parties will be at liberty to raise any pleas available to them and also filed additional documents, if any, in support of their respective submissions. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

M.I. Order accordingly,

Find a Lawyer Near You

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