Syed ASIF MAJEED and 5 others vs A.D.C.(C)/ASC(L), LAHORE and 15 others

ORDER

' SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment and order, dated 8-5-1997 delivered by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court whereby writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. The facts in brief are that in lieu of the land abandoned in India by the mother of the petitioners Nos.1 and 2, namely Mst. Hassan Jehan Dora Majeed, the Central Record Office verified her claim and the same was entered at Khata RL-H 62 in respect of village Dhanna Singh Wala, and thus, an area measuring 14 Kanals and 10 Marlas was confirmed in lieu of 149 produce index units.

Subsequent thereto another area of land measuring 18 Kanals, 16 Marlas was also confirmed on the same Khata. According to the petitioner, they recently came to know through Patwari that an area measuring 5 Kanals, 14 Marlas had been fraudulently inserted in the Khata of one Abdul Aziz at RL-II 106, village Dhanna Singh Wala as having been confirmed on 28-1-1970 against his rural claim form. This re-evaluation put the petitioners to inquiry and they learnt that further transactions of different parcels of land have taken place. The petitioners were further informed that an inquiry was conducted by AC(S), Lahore and it was held that allotment at Khata RL-II 106 was illegal and fraudulent, and thus, a case was registered against the concerned functionaries and the mutations attested with regard thereto were cancelled. The petitioners were then informed that the legal heirs of one Muhammad Amin had managed to get the above mentioned land mutated in their names in 1992 in an illegal manner. According to the averments in the writ petition, the petitioners then approached the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Cantt. And the Tehsildar Cantt., but their grievance was not redressed because evacuee laws had since been repealed and in these circumstances, the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court was invoked by the petitioners.

3. Surprisingly on the disputed Khata 106 allotment was made on 25-1-1970 and the petitioners awoke from their slumber after about a quarter of a century to challenge the same. On this score we are of the view that the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court rightly declined to interfere because the petition suffered from laches. In addition thereto, it was rightly observed by the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court that the, entire controversy revolved around questions of fact and needed an elaborate inquiry including recording of evidence, which exercise could not be undertaken in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction. The learned Judge of the Lahore High Court had called upon the petitioners to explain the delay and the only explanation given was that the petitioners and others had remained abroad, and therefore, they could not know as to the development of the facts with regard to the allotment. However, it was also explained that they had recently come to know of the development. This hardly constituted a plausible explanation to explain the laches. It is also interesting to note that no document was brought on the record to support the assertion of the petitioner that they had ever contacted A.D.C. (G) and Tehsildar for relief. The learned Judge of the Lahore High Court also noted that with the passage of time number of alienations qua the disputed property had taken place and major portions of the same had been sold to different persons in small parcels for construction of houses. The petitioners also failed to place on record certified copies of Khata RL-II 62 and Khata RL-II 106, the disputed one. In fact, handwritten copies sent by the counsel were placed on the record and the same were rightly discarded from consideration by the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court.

4. In view of the above, no ground is made out to interfere with the judgment of the High Court.

Hence this petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.