NADEEM EHSAN KHAN Versus BOARD OF REVENUE through Registrar
This writ petition, filed under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, challenged orders passed by revenue authorities, including the Member Judicial Board of Revenue. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of the petition given the availability of an alternate remedy and whether the petition was barred by the doctrine of laches due to delayed filing. The Court held that a revision petition before the Full Board of Revenue is only competent under Section 7(2) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Board of Revenue Act, 1993, when the Member Board of Revenue reverses or modifies a subordinate order; as the impugned order merely upheld the previous decision, the objection regarding an alternate remedy was rejected. However, the Court dismissed the petition in limine, ruling that it was hit by the doctrine of laches. It established the principle that constitutional petitions must be filed within a reasonable time, generally not exceeding three months, and any delay beyond this period must be specifically and adequately explained to avoid dismissal.
- Is a revision petition before the Full Board of Revenue competent when the Member Board of Revenue merely upholds a subordinate order?
- What is the reasonable time limit for filing a constitutional petition before the High Court?
- Does the failure to explain a delay in filing a constitutional petition render it liable to dismissal under the doctrine of laches?
- Article 44, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974
- Section 7(2), The Azad Jammu and Kashmir Board of Revenue Act, 1993
- Rule 6, The Azad Jammu and Kashmir Board of Revenue (Conduct of Appeals and Revisions) Rules, 1993
ORDER
SARDAR MUHAMMAD EJAZ KHAN, J.--- The captioned writ petition has been addressed under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 whereby the following relief has been implored by the petitioner:-
"It is, therefore, very humbly prayed that by accepting the instant petition an appropriate writ may be issued to the effect that the impugned order passed by the learned Member Judicial Board of Revenue (respondent No.2) dated 02.01.2024, order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Muzaffarabad, Division Muzaffarabad (respondent No.3) dated 23.09.2022 and order/decision by respondent No.4 dated 17.06.2021 are bad in law, arbitrary, discriminatory fanciful, which was issued in violation of the provisions of law as liable to be set-aside. It is also prayed that the learned Additional Commissioner, Muzaffarabad Division Muzaffarabad (respondent No.3) may kindly be directed to decide the revision petition filed by the on merit. Any other relief which this Court deems proper may also be granted."
2. At the very outset, the learned counsel for private respondent No.6 raised preliminary objection that the learned Member Board of Revenue (Judicial) passed the impugned order dated 02.01.2024 while exercising powers as an appellate jurisdiction, hence, the petitioner has alternate remedy to file revision petition before the learned Board of Revenue, as such, the writ petition on this sole ground is not maintainable.
3. From bare reading of relevant provisions of law, it transpires that an application for revision before the learned Full Board of Revenue under subsection (2) of Section 7 of The Azad Jammu and Kashmir Board of Revenue Act, 1993 coupled with Rule 6 of The Azad Jammu and Kashmir Board of Revenue (Conduct of Appeals and Revisions) Rules, 1993 lies where the order made or decree passed by the Court, subordinate to the Board is reversed or modified by a Member Board of Revenue on appeal but in the case in hand, the appeal was preferred, against the order dated 23.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner Muzaffarabad Division, Muzaffarabad, on 16.12.2022 before Member Board of Revenue (Judicial), Muzaffarabad, through which order of Additional Commissioner Muzaffarabad Division Muzaffarabad dated 23.09.2022 was neither modified nor reversed rather the same was upheld vide impugned order dated 02.01.2024, as such, under the relevant provisions of law, a revision before the learned Full Board of Revenue does not lie, hence, the argument of the learned counsel for private respondent No.6 has no substance, which is hereby repelled. My this view finds support from a case reported as Muhammad Nazir Khan v. Board of Revenue and 4 others [2021 SCR 242] in which it has been opined as under:-
"The learned counsel for the appellant has rightly contended that the revision petition before the Full Board of Revenue is only competent where the Member Board of Revenue has reserved or modified the order of subordinate forums, whereas, eventuality exists in the instant case."
4. It is another important aspect of the case in hand that the petitioner filed the instant writ petition on 17.05.2024 against the impugned order of the learned Member Board of Revenue (Judicial), Muzaffarabad, dated 02.01.2024 along with other orders passed by lower revenue authorities after elapsing more than four months for which he annexed an application for condonation of delay. A contemplate perusal of record depicts that no sufficient cause of delay has been explained it rather delay can only be condoned where sufficient cause is specifically explained but the cause shown pertaining to delay is alien to the statutory provisions of law, hence, the writ petition is hit by law of laches. My this view finds support from a case reported as Syed Altaf Hussain Bukhari v. Zeeshan Shoukat and 3 others [2022 SCR 1088] wherein it has been opined as under:-
"It is now well settled that constitutional petition has to be filed within a reasonable time. Aggrieved person has to challenge the impugned order not later than three months, which is reasonable time and if constitutional petition is filed after the expiry of three months the period thereafter has to be in adequately and sufficiently been explained by the petitioner. In this case, we are satisfied that the petitioner was negligent prosecuting the matter and the writ petition was filed after inordinate delay, hence, the same was hit by the principle of laches and was not maintainable."
5. By taking into account the above quoted case law, the instant writ petition, without going into the merits of the case, is hit by doctrine of laches, which is hereby dismissed in limine and the same shall be consigned to record.
MQ/21/HC(AJ&K) Petition dismissed.