1992 PLP 1075 (SCMR)

Date of hearing: 17th August, 1991. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to the writ petitioners to examine whether on facts and circumstances, the case of the appellants was not such which should have been examined on merits notwithstanding the plea of laches which prevailed in the High Court.

2. The factual background of the case is that on 11‑7‑1974, an application was addressed by Ghulam Haider and Dost Muhammad (appellants Nos.l and .3) to the Member, Board of Revenue stating that the land belonging to the Central Government was lying waste and was in their possession; it was not allotted to any one nor being utilised for any purpose. They wanted that it should be leased to them for a period of 99 years for cultivation. The Board of Revenue, soon thereafter, on 22‑7‑1974 ordered as hereunder:‑‑ "The applicants may remain in possession of lard bearing Khasra Nos.787, 760 and 174 and 786/167, situated in Mahal Karakhasa, Mauza Karani Tapa Shahdanzai Tehsil Quetta till the uniform policy in respect of allotment/sale/lease etc. is finally decided and introduced in the Province. Proper agreement would be executed after the approval/introduction of the said uniform policy." On the 10th of August, 1974, again the appellants Nos.l to 3 addressed an application as hereunder:‑‑ "That the Government Policy by now has been perhaps finalized, hence this request. It is therefore requested that the aforesaid Government land may very kindly be allotted on 99 years lease, for agricultural purpose." ' The Board of Revenue approved this request as hereunder, on 24‑8‑1974:‑ "A copy of an application dated 10‑8‑1974, submitted by one Ghulam Haider son of Haji Wazir Khan, Dost Muhammad son of Haji Abdul Marian, Wali Muhammad son of Haji Abdul Manan Nasars of Nawan Killi Tehsil Quetta requesting for leasing out the above‑cited Government land to them on long terms lease upto 99 years basis is sent herewith. The necessary agreement as provided in the Punjab Land Administration Manual may after due scrutiny be executed and a copy furnished to this office through the Commissioner, Quetta Division immediately." 4.On 13th of April, 1975, another application was made by the appellants Nos.l to 3 to the Board of Revenue claiming the transfer of the land on reasonable sale price. On 20‑4‑1975 the Board of Revenue approved its sale at the rate of Rs.10 per produce index unit in favour of amongst others, the appellants. In this background of facts, Martial I:aw Order No.16 came to, be promulgated on 22‑12‑1977 and it required the review of the allotments or sale etc. of the State land made between the first day of January, 1972 and the 4th day of July, 1977. The Board of Revenue examined or reviewed the sales made in favour of the appellants pursuant to this Martial Law Order and saw no reason to interfere with it on the assumption that the land was not State land which had been sold to the appellants but evacuee land and that there was a scheme of sale of such evacuee land. The Martial Law Order No.16 was reconstituted by Martial Law Order 46 on 11‑2‑1979 and another review was permitted and this time by the Martial Law Administrator or his nominee. It was on the authority of such reconstituted Martial Law Order 46 that cancellation of the allotment/sale in favour of the appellants was ordered and alternative of paying the price of it was extended. The review filed by the appellants before the Board of Revenue failed and the Constitution Petition filed by them also on the ground of laches because the Constitution Petition was instituted in December, 1988, though the orders challenged were passed in 1985 and earlier.

5. At the time of the grant of leave, as appears from the leave granting order, the impression gathered was that substantial questions of law and rights m property were involved and laches alone could not stand in the way because the appellants were somewhat helpless before ,the Martial Law Authorities in the matter.

6. It is to be noted that the appellants at all the stages sought and obtained the allotment of this land as State land. Their effort to protect it against review were all directed on the basis that it was evacuee land. It appears that in fact it was State land and not evacuee land. Secondly, the condition of sale or allotment itself was that it should be in accord with some uniform policy. There was no such policy either for lease of the land for 99 years or for its sale. Hence, the sale as well as the lease were outside any scheme and hence reviewable under the Martial Law Orders.

7. There vests no authority in the Board of Revenue to make individual sales by private negotiations outside the scheme and it was the power possessed by the Government and the Government never exercised that power in this case. Hence, the entire grant made in favour of the appellants was without jurisdiction and could not stand. Its review was permissible.

8. The High Court has taken a correct view on the ground of delay. The. appellants were allowed ultimately on account of their investments to purchase the land on the market price. They remained satisfied with it for three years and it was as an afterthought that in 1988 they challenged that conditional sale in their favour by resort to writ jurisdiction. We have examined all aspects of the case and find that apart from laches, the appellants' case had no merit. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. AA./G‑342/S Appeal dismissed.