ASHIQ ALI Versus ADMINISTRATOR, THAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

ORDER

In this constitutional petition, the petitioner has called in question the order passed by respondent No.2 dated 28‑2‑1961 on mutation No.1179 by which the said mutation was cancelled and has also prayed for a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the application of the petitioner made by him for adjustment of land in his favour.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he; purchased in e land through registered sale‑deed on 22‑9‑1951 from one Gul Muhammad son of Allah Bakhsh before Notification for acquisition of the said land was made by T.D.A., therefore, he was entitled to be treated as the owner of the land purchased by him in his own right and was entitled to be adjusted against the land independently from the previous owner Gul Muhammad. The writ petition suffers from laches. The departmental representative stated that the right of return of Gul Muhammad, the original owner was determined and whatever land was found to be adjustable to him was given to his vendees in order of seniority and after adjustment of land in favour of vendees senior to the present petitioner nothing was left, therefore, the petitioner being subsequent vendee could not get any land. He pointed out that the petitioner kept quiet for a long time and as a matter of fact should have challenged the order of adjustment made in favour of Gul Muhammad Khan for the land if he was claiming right independently from Gul Muhammad which having not been done the said order of adjustment of the land in the name of Gul Auhammad first and then in favour of the senior vendees from him having remained unchallenged, The case now could not be re‑opened which if allowed to be reopened, all those persons, who have been given land shall have to be heard.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The writ petition has been filed after inordinate delay and the point raised by the department representative has considerable force. It appears that the petitioner has been prompted to file the writ petition because the Supreme Court in judgment reported as P L D 1986 S C 96 held that the adjustment is to be made Notificationwise and that the vendee of the property prior to the issuance of Notification for acquisition of land was entitled to adjustment in his own right. It was for the petitioner to agitate the matter at the relevant time and as it has been held in Writ Petition No.699 of 1986 by this Court that a person who was not party in the case decided by the Supreme Court referred to above could not come forward and lay claim. I am not inclined to exercise my discretion under Article 199 of the ‑Constitution, in favour of petitioner who has been sleeping over the matter. The writ petition suffers from laches, therefore, the same is dismissed as, such in, limine.

A.A./A-310/L Petition dismissed.