1983 PLP 783 (SCMR)

HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑The dispute in this case relates to an evacuee House No. B/22‑11177 situated in Advani Lane, Hyderabad. The petitioner claimed that he had taken it on rent from one Ghansham Das Gopaldas Advani, who subsequently became an evacuee. On this ground he claimed to be in possession thereof and also to have paid rent to the Custodian's Department. Subsequently, he applied for the transfer of the property on a CH form. In the meantime, one Chetan Singly who later converted to Islam and assumed the name of Nabi Bakksh, applied under section 22 of the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act of 1957 for a declaration that the property in dispute including some others were non‑evacuee properties. This application was allowed by the Additional Custodian on the 8th of November, 1980 subject to confirmation‑ by the Custodian who passed the order of confirmation on the 30th of September, 1961. The present petitioner then sought to have the order of the Custodian reviewed. The Custodian in the first instance on the 28th of April 1962 directed the Deputy Custodian to record, evidence and submit a report within two months: The enquiry was actually held by the Additional Custodian who reported on the 31st of January, 1963 that the petitioner was unable to substantiate his claim that the property was an evacuee property. The petitioner was then heard by the Custodian who dismissed the review application on the 14th of June, 1963. The petitioner did nothing until 1969 when he filed Writ Petition No. 74 of 1969 in the High Court of West Pakistan at its Karachi seat challenging the validity of the order of Custodian on the ground that the Custodian had acted without getting a report from the Special Police Estab lishment in the matter. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the 23rd of February, 1973 holding that it was not only a belated application filed after the expiry of nearly six years or so, but .that it was also without any merit. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal and it is contended on his behalf that an order under section 22 of the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957, is not operative until and unless an order of restoration of the property has also been made under section 23 of the aforesaid Act. We are informed that proceedings for the enforcement or execution of the order under section 22 are, in fact, going on. This shows that steps had already been taken by Nabi Bakhsh to get the property restored. If he succeeds, the order under section 23 for restoration will automatically follow. The absence of an order section 23 cannot invalidate the order under section

22. If the petitioner has any valid grounds for resisting restoration of possession he should contest the execution proceedings. So far as the writ petition is concerned, we are of the opinion that it was rightly dismissed. It a was hopelessly barred by laches on the part of the petitioner. We see no reason to interfere. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Leave refused,