1980 PLP 165 (SCMR)

G. SAFDAR SHAH, J.‑The background in which the petitioners have come up to this Court praying for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 26‑10‑1977 is as follows :‑ The parties herein had been engaged in retracted litigation with each other in respect of the suit land. The land in question was jointly owned by one Akbar Khan and Ghulam to the extent of 4/15 share. Akbar Khan and Ghulam mortgaged the said share in the land in favour of one Bahadur and Dost Muhammad, vide Mutation No. 183 attested on 31‑5‑1897, and conse quently the land remained as mortgaged until 1927‑28 when Bahadur died and his share in the mortgaged land was inherited by his brother Dost Muhammad. In this respect Mutation No. 348 attested on 26‑8‑1928 had been relied upon as a piece of evidence by the Courts to which no exception seems to have been taken. Subsequently, Dost Muhammad died and his property devolved on one Fateh Khan as his sole heir. Fateh Khan then sib‑mortgaged the suit land in favour of one Abdur Rauf vide Mutation No. 3144 attested on 20‑9‑1942. However, Abdur Rauf subsequently transferred his mortgage rights in the land in favour of his two minor sons, namely, Azizur‑Rehman and Shamasur‑Rehman vide Mutation No. 5780 attested on 7‑8‑1946. In the year 1951, however, when the consolidation proceedings commenced in the area, Abdur Rauf sold the mortgagee rights of his two minor sons ,n favour of the petitioners in the sum of Rs. 600 vide unregistered deed dated 12‑8‑1951. The statement of Abdur Rauf in that behalf was also incorporated in the form of resolution (Exh. O. NV./2‑R‑1) of the consolidation proceedings. Notwithstanding the said position, however, the petitioner purchased 2/15 share of the said mortgagee rights of Shamasur‑Rehman, the son of Abdur Rauf for Rs. 1,200 vide Mutation No. 10900 attested on 15‑3‑1966. And soon thereafter the land in dispute was acquired by the Government for the purpose of Turbela Dam Project. After the said land was thus acquired, Shamasur‑Rehman, Fazalur‑Rehman and Azizur‑Rehman filed an objection petition before the Land Acquisition Collector under section 18/30 of the Land‑ Acquisition Act claiming therein that being the owners of the land in question as mortgagees for more than sixty years they alone would be entitled to the compensation thereof to the exclusion of every one else. The learned Additional District Judge (Acquisition), Haripur, however, dismissed the said objection petition vide his judgment, dated 21‑4‑1973. Being aggrieved of the said order, the respondents went in First Appeal to the High Court which was allowed by a learned Single Judge vide his judgment, dated 26‑10‑1977. We have heard Mr, Abdul Samad Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioners. The report of the Office is that this petition is barred by 50 days. In order to tide over this difficulty the petitioners have filed an appli cation for condonation of the delay in question contending therein that the judgment of the High Court no doubt bears 26‑10‑1977 as the date of its announcement but on that date their counsel appeared in the High Court and made inquiries about the application filed by him on 23‑10‑1977, in which the rehearing of the case had been sought and he was told by the Reader of the Court that no date had yet been fixed in respect of the said application. The learned counsel argued that in view of the said information conveyed to ~him by the Reader of the Court, evidently the application of his clients filed on 23‑10‑1977 was still pending for disposal and consequently the High Court had erroneously announced the judgment on 26‑10‑1977. We are afraid, there is no force in this contention. If what the learned counsel has contended was really true, the obvious course for him would have been to file an application in the High Court in that behalf which alone was the competent forum to decide this disputed question. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to go into this question and would presume that the High Court had correctly announced its judgment on. 26‑10‑1977. The further difficulty in the way of the petitioners is that whereas the judgment of the High Court was announced on 26‑10‑1977, they made an application for a certified copy of it on 14‑2‑1977, which the learned counsel conceded was beyond the total period of limitation prescribed for frankly sent petition in this Court. In this view of the matter, this petition is not only barred by 50 days as reported by the Office, but hope lessly barred for which no satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the petitioners. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel prayed to be allowed to withdraw this petition. Dismissed as withdrawn. Petition dismissed as withdrawn.