1984 PLP 3052 (CLC)

(a) Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981)‑ ‑‑Art. 9‑West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960), S. 10‑Constitutional jurisdiction ‑ Laches‑Petitioner filing writ petition after 4 years of review order passed by Member, Board of Revenue (Consolidation)‑Petitioner's plea for delay that relevant mutation was further challenged by him before concerned authorities and there was no delay if computed from date of final order in these proceedings, held, was of no substance‑Mutation, held further, was nothing but a step in implementation of basic order of Board of Revenue and could give petitioner no fresh cause of action‑Challenging basic order after 4 years, held, was too late and laches attracted. ‑[Laches]. Liaqat Hussain v. Punjab Government etc. N L R 1983 Rev. 89 ref. (b) West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960)‑ ‑‑‑S. 10‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9 Consolidation proceedings‑Allotment of land, exclusive function of consolidation authorities‑Allotment to make good deficiency in entitlement, held, could ‑not be secured in writ jurisdiction. Ghulam Qadir v. Board of Revenue etc. 1970 S C M R 292 fol. This Writ Petition arises out of consolidation proceedings starting in early sixties. The precise dispute over which the parties are fighting eversince relates to a passage comprising Khasra No. 38 carved out is those proceedings. Its former Nos. were 30, 31 and

32. At least six Marlas being part of Khasra No. 30 were claimed to belong to the peti tioner. On a grievance made by the respondents that the area allotted to them in consolidation was lesser, they were allowed to apportion this passage with a view to make good the deficiency in their entitlement. It evoked proceedings and counter‑proceedings upttl the Board of Revenue where the learned Member by his order, dated 1st April, 1978 con firmed its transfer to the respondents by eliminating the passage altogether.

2. The present petitioner who was not a party to those proceedings, had no objection to the continuance of the passage despite having contributed six Marlas to it from his own Khasra No. 30, yet he did not like that on its elimination, the area should be allotted to the respondents. Accordingly, he preferred a Review Petition before the learned Member, but it was dismissed on 17th October, 1979.

3. The present Writ Petition brought on 28th September, 1983 was challenged to be seriously hit by !aches. Liaqat Hussain v. Punjab Government etc. (N L R 1983 Rev. 89) was cited in this behalf wherein delay of two years after passing of the impugned order was considered to be inordinately long so to justify dismissal of the writ petition.

4. Mr. Shahid Hussain Kadri, in reply, contended that the petitioner had challenged the relevant mutation, dated 24th April, 1980 uptil the Board of Revenue where finally his request was turned down on 24th August, 1983 and thus the writ petition brought within a month thereafter on 27th September, 1983 was not hit by laches.

5. The mutation R‑5 was nothing but a step taken in implementation of the basic order, dated 1st April, 1978 of the learned Member, Board of Revenue. It could not be characterised to be a new cause of action, nor would the petitioner's appeal or revision etc. arising therefrom be regarded as an independent remedy. The real grievance for the petitioner, if any, arose when his Review Petition was dismissed on 17th October, 1979, and the basic order, dated 1st April, 1978 was confirmed. Obviously, to challenge it on 27th September, 1983 i.e. after a period of four years, was by all means too late. Laches were attracted. The authority relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents applies comparatively with greater force as the delay here was twice as much.

6. Apart from this aspect, allotment in Consolidation proceedings was the exclusive function of the concerned authorities. It is not for the High Court to see what area be given to whom. Ghulam Qadir v. Board o Revenue etc. (1970 S C M R 292) is a direct authority on the point. On this score too, carving out a passage, its elimination subsequently and allotment to a right‑holder to make good deficiency in his entitlement cannot be scanned! l,a in writ jurisdiction.

7. The writ petition is dismissed.

8. C. M. No. 3927/83, by virtue of which the, applicants therein were impleaded as necessary party, will also fail along with the writ petition itself. M. B. A. ‑‑‑‑ Petition dismissed.