KHUDA BAKHSH and others Versus MUZAFFAR through L.Rs.

KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J. --- Four hundred acres of State land were leased out to one Sardar Bakhsh around the year 1857. When the Government decided to confer occupancy/proprietary rights on the said Sardar Bakhsh, it transpired that he had mortgaged the said land without the permission of the Government. The conferment of the proprietary rights was thus, deferred; the term of lease was extended and he was asked to have the said land redeemed. He, however, died in the year 1890 before doing the needful. Thereafter, the said land was mutated in the name of his widow Mst. Jalal Bibi who appears to have died in the year 1911. Some disputes appear to have then cropped up amongst the heirs of Sardar Bakhsh. Details of the said disputes are not relevant for our purposes and are, therefore, being ignored. What is, however, relevant is that the matter of conferment of propriety rights remained dormant, though pending, and it was finally, in the year 1968/69 that the Government ordered resumption of the suit-land. This led the plaintiffs to the filing of a suit in the Court of a learned Civil Judge at Sargodha which suit was dismissed and similar was the fate met by the appeal filed by them. The second appeals filed in the matter were, however, allowed by the learned High Court in the year 1980 and the matter was remanded back to the learned District Judge for a fresh decision on the merits of the case. A learned Additional District Judge at Sargodha, who got entrusted with the said appeals in pursuance of the said remand order, re-examined the matter and again dismissed the said appeals. Fresh Appeal being R.S.As. Nos.29 and 43 of 1982 were then filed in the Lahore High Court impugning the judgment and decree dismissing the said suit. One Muhammad Amin and three others also joined the battle by filing a Writ Petition No.21545 of 1998 in the Lahore High Court. Their claim was that they were in cultivating possession of the suit-land as tenants under, the Provincial Government and sought a declaration that they were under an obligation to deposit the owner's share of the produce of the said land only with the Provincial Government and that none else was entitled to the same. They also submitted an application in the Lahore High Court under Order I, rule 10 of the C.P.C. and sought to be impleaded as parties to the above-mentioned R.S.As. on the grounds that in case the plaintiffs were not found entitled to the land in question then they were the ones who were entitled to the grant of the same.

2. The said two R.S.As., along with the said application under Order I, rule 10 of the C.P.C., as also the said writ petition were heard by the learned High Court and through a consolidated judgment, dated 15-12-2000, the said R.S.As. were accepted; the judgments and decrees of both the subordinate Courts were set aside and it was consequently declared that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit-land who had not violated any term of the lease and were thus, entitled to the grant of occupancy/proprietary rights subject to fulfilment of such terms and conditions as the law prescribed in the matter. The above mentioned Writ petition No.21545 of 1998 was, however, dismissed.

3. Despite their suits having been decreed by the High Court, six out of the eight plaintiffs/their heirs, are before us with Civil Appeal No.1378 of 2001 which surprised us and on our question as to what had brought them to this Court, we were informed that they were now seeking a declaration that the private respondents, at least two of whom were plaintiffs before the trial Court, were not entitled to the fruits of the decree passed by the learned High Court i.e. that they were not entitled to any share in the suit-land.

4. The learned Advocate Supreme Court for the said appellants had no reasonable answer to offer when he was confronted with the fact that the issues struck at the trial were essentially about the resumption of the suit-land by the Government; that no issue had been struck and in fact none had even claimed at the trial about the entitlement of the ones claiming the said land as heirs/successors of the original lessee i.e. Sardar Bakhsh and that if anyone had any reservations about the entitlement of anyone else to the land in question then remedies would always be available to him/them for the purpose.

5. This being so, Civil Appeal No.1378 of 2001 is dismissed being without a cause.

6. Civil Petitions Nos.250/L and 2842/L of 2002 have been filed by the Province of Punjab through the Collector, Sargodha and others questioning the validity of the above mentioned, judgment and decree passed by the learned High Court. Both these petitions were filed 349 days and 536 days, respectively, after the expiry of the period prescribed for the purpose. The explanation offered for condonation of the said inordinate delay of about a year in one case and about 1-1/2 years in the other, was the usual excuse of lethargy in various offices/departments of the petitioner-Government which has never been considered a sufficient ground for the purpose. Both these petitions are, therefore, dismissed as being barred by time.

7. The connected Civil Petition No.537/L of 2001 filed by Muhammad Amin and others who claimed entitlement to the land in question in case the successors of Sardar Bakhsh were not found entitled to the same. Since we have maintained the judgment and decree passed by the learned High Court, therefore, the said Civil Petition No.537/L of 2001 had become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed.

M.H./K-2/SC Petition dismissed.