Find a Lawyer

(a) West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960)‑‑

‑‑‑Ss. 10 & 13‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Writ petition‑‑Laches and delay‑‑Writ petition moved on 13‑6‑1987 against order passed on 21‑7‑1983, suffering from laches and delay‑‑Petitioner failing to give any plausible and reasonable explanation for inordinate delay in filing writ petition‑ Petitioner having been negligent in prosecution of his matter before authorities, petition was dismissed in limine.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Writ petition‑‑Limitation‑‑No period of limitation was provided under Art.199 but writ petition has to be filed within a reasonable period of time after obtaining certified copies of documents‑‑Aggrieved person has to challenge impugned orders within three months of obtaining copies of documents and period thereafter has to be adequately and sufficiently explained by the petitioner.‑ (Limitation].

Muhammad Mahmood for Petitioner.

The petitioner Shamas Din has moved this Constitutional petition against the respondents praying therein that the orders dated 14‑7‑1985 and 21‑7‑1983, passed by respondent No. 4, Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence.

2. The dispute in the case pertains to the consolidation operations which were carried out in village Kot Pindi Das, Tehsil Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura, and which consolidation scheme was confirmed on 30‑6‑1979. The litigation between the parties ultimately culminated in the order dated 21‑7‑1983 passed by the learned Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, against the present petitioner on the revision petition filed by the respondents. The petitioner challenged the revisional order dated 21‑7‑1983, by filing a review petition which was dismissed by the said learned officer on 14‑7‑1985. The petitioner has moved this petition on 13‑6‑1987, after the expiry of more than three years.

3. This Constitutional petition on the face of it suffers from laches and delay inasmuch as the last impugned order was passed as back as 21‑7‑1983 by the learned Member (Consolidation) Board of A Revenue. A review petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on 14‑7‑1985 in the presence of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has appended an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of delay in filing the present writ petition. Learned counsel submitted that no order was passed in the review petition, but the judgment was reserved on 8‑7‑1985. However, from a persual of the application, it is evident that the learned Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue dismissed the review petition on 14‑7‑1985 after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner. I am not convinced with the explanation provided by the petitioner for the inordinate delay in filing the petition before this Court. In the meantime valuable rights have accrued in favour of the respondents by operation of law. The petitioner was not vigilent in pursuing his own remedies provided to him under the law. He has failed to give any plausible and reasonable explanation in filing the writ petition so late. It is next contended vehemently by learned counsel for the petitioner that under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, no period of limitation has been provided for filing the writ petitions. I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel. Although no period of limitation is provided under the Constitutional provision, the fact remains that B the constitutional petition had to be filed within a reasobable period of time after obtaining the certified copies of the documents. At any rate, after obtaining the certified copies of various documents in a particular case, an aggrieved person has to challenge the impugned orders not later than three months and if a Constitutional petition is moved after the expiry of three months, the period thereafter has to be adequately and sufficiently explained by the petitioner. In this case I am satisfied that the petitioner was negligent in the prosecution of his matter before the Consolidation authorities.

5. The upshot of the above discussion is that I proceed to dismiss the writ petition in limine without touching ‑the merits of the case.

S.Q./S‑80/L 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.