1. WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-Property No. S-77-R-7 known as No. 8 Jail Road, Lahore, was in possession of the petitioner, Messrs F. A. Siddiqui respondent No. 4, Mr. Bashirullah and Masihullah respondents Nos. 5 and 6. These persons applied for the transfer of the property in dispute on C. H. Forms. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner divided the property into two portions one portion was transferred to Messrs Siddiqui and the other portion has transferred to Bashirullah and Masihullah respondents Nos. 5 and 6. The learned Officer came to the conclusion that all the parties came into possession -on the 6th June 1949, and gave preference to Bashirullah and Masihullah who were in possession of major portion of the bungalow and did not transfer .Any portion of the property to the petitioner. The petitioner- challenged this order in- appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner which was dismissed in his absence in spite of service. The learned Officer further, rejected the claim on the ground that the petitioner was inferior to . The other parties as he was occupying a very small portion. The petitioner applied for the setting aside of the ex parte order but it was dismissed on the 2nd August 1960, on the ground that his appeal was also dismissed on merits. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a revision petition which was rejected oil the 13th February 1962, by the Settlement Commissioner on the ground that it was hopelessly barred by time, The second revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner as being incompetent on the 7th June 1962. Thereafter, the petitioner slept over the matter. On the 2nd February 1967, he filed a Writ Petition No. 199/R of 1967 in the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, for the redress of his grievance. A Division Bench of the High Court, dismissed this writ petition by order dated the 6th June 1969, on the ground that it suffered from inordinate delay and laches. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.
2. Mr. Akhlaque Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that in a case where impugned order is a nullity the question of laches is not relevant and the High Court should have allowed the writ ex-debito justitiae. The learned counsel further contended that the petition was admitted in the High Court in spite of delay and it will be presumed that the delay has been condoned and this question cannot be re-agitated. He further referred us to the order of the High Court dated the 9th October 1967, refusing to vacate the stay order and contended that the High Court having once exercised its discretion could not re-open the question of delay. He further contended that the petitioner has been pursuing his remedy before the Chief Settlement Commissioner and other Settlement authorities for grant of excess land of the bungalow any it was a fit case for condonation of delay. None of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has any force. From the facts of the case it does not appear that the order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner was a nullity in the eye of law. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed after notice to him. It cannot, therefore, be said that the order dismissing the appeal suffered from the principles of natural justice. The mere fact that the High Court admitted the writ petition for hearing or did not vacate the stay order would not mean that the delay caused by the petitioner has been condoned. The time for considering this question only arose at the time of the final hearing of the petition and the High Court, in the circumstances, was competent to go into this question.
3. It will be further noticed that respondents Nos. 5 and 6,. Who are the nephews of the petitioner, filed an ejectment application against him on the 10th June 1964, in respect of the portion of the property in dispute in his possession. Written statement was filed by the petitioner in these proceedings on the 25th September 1964. He did not mention in these proceedings that his second revision petition was still pending before the Chief Settlement Commissioner. This clearly shows that he was aware that his second revision petition has already been dismissed.
4. Apart from this, the petitioner entered into a compromise with respondents Nos. 5 and 6 on the 24th November 1965. Under this compromise respondents Nos. 5 and 6 had abandoned their claim to the rent which had fallen due and had also agreed not to charge rent for the next eight months provided the petitioner vacated the property in dispute within that period. It is thus clear that by entering into this compromise, the petitioner had waived his right in the property in dispute. In these circumstances, he cannot be allowed to repudiate the compromise entered into by him and to re-agitate the dispute about the transfer of the property before the High Court.
5. After going through the record with the help of the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the learned Judges of the High Court were perfectly justified in rejecting the writ petition of the petitioner on the ground of inordinate delay and laches. The petitioner kept quite from 7th June 1962, to 22nd February 1967, and the explanation given by him that he was pursuing other remedies before the competent authorities was rightly rejected by the High Court. Moreover, as already pointed out the petitioner has compromised the matter with respondents Nos. 5 and 6 and has thereby abandoned his right in the property in dispute. There is no force in the petition which is dismissed.