1991 PLP 1428 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑S.3‑‑‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), S.10‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.3‑‑ Petitioner's application for redemption of his mortgaged land was allowed by Collector‑‑‑Respondent who had been allotted land in question, as an evacuee land filed appeal, whereby Collector's order was set aside‑‑‑Board of Revenue, in revision upheld order of Appellate Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Question of fact arrived at by Appellate Court and Board of Revenue in revision, was that redemption application was moved beyond sixty years‑‑‑Competent Authorities, thus, correctly rejected petitioner's redemption application‑‑‑Land in question, had been allotted to respondent against his verified claim treating same as evacuee‑‑ Petitioner failed to point out exact date on which land in question was mortgaged by his predecessor‑in‑interest with the evacuee, although burden was on him to prove that application for redemption was within time‑‑‑Respondent had, however, proved that application for redemption had been moved after statutory period of sixty years prescribed for redemption‑‑‑Equity was not on the side of petitioner inasmuch as land in question was allotted to respondent against his verified claim since long‑‑‑Petition was dismissed in circumstances. Ch. Nazar Hussain for Petitioner. Farooq Bedar and Muhammad Akhtar, Addl. A.‑G. (Pb.) for Respondent. Date of hearing 5th March, 1991. A piece of the land measuring 3 Kanals and 9 Marlas situated in village Talsipur, tehsil Pesrur, district Sialkot, was mortgaged by predecessor‑in‑interest of Allah Rakha petitioner with evacuees before the year 1907‑

08. Allah Rakha moved an application for redemption of the mortgaged land under the provisions of West Pakistan Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1964. This application of the petitioner was allowed by the learned Collector, Gujranwala, and in consequence thereof land so mortgaged was redeemed on 31‑5‑1984. Respondent Dhoonda who was allotted the land in question treating it as an evacuee land, felt aggrieved by this order and instituted an appeal under section 14 of Act (XIX of 1964), which was heard and accepted by the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala, on 7‑5‑1985. It was held that redemption application of the petitioner was barred by limitation. The petitioner went in revision which, too, was heard and dismissed by the learned Member (Judicial‑II), Board of Revenue, on 26‑12‑1989. It was held that the application of the petitioner had been instituted by him beyond sixty years' time. Instead of challenging the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a review application which was heard and dismissed by the learned Member (Judicial‑II), Board of Revenue, on 16‑7‑1990.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the redemption application was within time and as such the Revenue authorities failed to consider this legal question. The Constitutional petition has been opposed tooth and nail by Mr. Farooq Bedar, the learned Additional Advocate‑General. Firstly, he submits the Constitutional petition suffers from laches and delay by more than eight months. According to the learned Law Officer, no explanation in that behalf has been given by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He argues that it is established beyond doubt that the redemption‑application of the petitioner was barred by limitation and as such it was rightly rejected by the competent Courts below. The learned Law Officer stresses that land being evacuee, was allotted to the respondent against his claim and that as such it is not possible at this, late stage to take it back for its return to the petitioner under the law.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is a question of fact arrived at by the learned Additional Commissioner and the Member (Judicial‑II), Board of Revenue, that the redemption application of the petitioner was moved beyond sixty years and that being so the application was rightly rejected by the competent authorities. I find that the land in dispute had been allotted to the respondent against his verified claim treating it as evacuee. The learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out the exact date on which the land in question was mortgaged by the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioner with the evacuees. Burden was on the petitioner to prove the exact date of mortgage and he was required under law to prove that his application was within time. This burden has not been discharged. On the contrary, it has been proved by the respondent that the application has been moved by the present petitioner after the expiry of sixty years, the period of limitation prescribed by law. Even equity is not on the side of the petitioner inasmuch as long ago the land in dispute was allotted to the respondent against his genuine claim. I am not persuaded to interfere in the matter, and as such the petition is dismissed in limine. A.A./A‑1317/L Petition dismissed.