MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- On 20.7.1988 respondent No. 1 filed a suit against the petitioner and other respondents. In the plaint it was stated that the said respondent No. 1 alongwith Abdul Qadir, respondent No. 6 are in possession of suit land and were transferred Khasra No. 806 measuring 2 kanals, 2 marlas and 16 marlas out of Khasra No. 810 total measuring 2 kanals, 13 marlas. This land was sold by auction by respondent No. 2 in favour of the petitioner on 14.6.1982 while respondent No. 3 confirmed the auction on 20.7.1982. The auction was stated to be illegal and void on the ground that the evacuee land was in possession of respondents Nos. 1 and 6 during the relevant period and it had to be offered to them or sale and could not have been put to auction without first offering it to it for sale to respondents Nos. 1 and 6; that an application was filed before respondent No. 3 for cancellation of auction but nothing happened. Thereafter an application was filed on 16.8.1983 before the Chief Settlement Commissioner who cancelled the auction vide order dated 14.6.1984. However, this order was not implemented. Respondent No. 1 kept on pressing the matter and ultimately a letter was addressed by the Board of Revenue on 1.7.1987 asking respondent No. 1 to commence proceedings in a Court of law. The suit was contested by the petitioner who objected that the suit is barred by time and denied the other allegations. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 11.7.1991. An appeal filed by the petitioner No. 1, however, was allowed by the District Judge, Attock on 14.10.1992 who decreed the suit of respondent No. 1.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the suit was barred by time inasmuch as in order to question the auction dated 14.6.1982 the suit was filed on 20.7.1988. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, states that it is an admitted position that respondent No. 1 is in possession alongwith respondent No. 6 and the auction as such was void.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records, appended with this Civil Revision, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I find that copies of Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1969-70, Ex.P.14 are for the year 1973-74 Ex.P.15 do bear out that respondent No. 1 was in possession of the said evacuee land during the relevant harvests and as such in terms of Section 2 of the Evacuee Properties and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1,975 the Provincial Government was bound to offer the said land for sale to respondents Nos. 1 and 6. Apart from this I find that the auction was confirmed on 20.7.1982. Respondent No. 1 has proved on record that he had continuously been agitating the matter and it was vide Ex.P.17, dated 4.9.1986 that the Board of Revenue asked him to go to a Court of law. This being so, by no stretch the suit can be said to be barred by time. No other point has been urged. The Civil Revision is dismissed without any orders as to costs.
Civil .