1. WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were allotted square No. 38, killas I to 25 out of lot No. 1 in Chak No. 18/8 B. R. Tehsil Khanewal, District Multan, for a period of three years under Grow More Food Campaign, on the 13th March 1958, by the Collector, Multan. Similarly, square No. 35 killa Nos. 1 to 25 out of lot No. 1, was allotted to petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 along with their brother Mohammad Ramzan, petitioner No. 5 on the aforesaid terms and conditions for a period of three years on the 14th March 1958. The Provincial Government extended the period of lease of State Waste Land granted under the said scheme from three years to five years vide Board of Revenue Circular Memorandum No. 5449/58/6399 dated the 13th September 1958, and Memo. Dated the 29th October 1958. In September 1959, the Government promulgated a scheme known as Tubewell Scheme. The aforesaid area was included in the Schedule to the Tubewell Scheme and the Collector allotted the entire area to Muhammad Shafi on the 24th October 1961. The petitioners challenged this order before the Additional Commissioner, Revenue, which was dismissed on the 18th November 1961. This order was further assailed and the learned Member, Board of Revenue, by order dated the 24th April 1963, turned down the prayer of the petitioners. He held that the remedy of the petitioners was to file an appeal against the order of cancellation of their lease or the refusal to extend the period of their lease. Instead of doing so, the petitioners kept quiet till the land was included in the Schedule to the Tubewell Scheme. They then applied for the grant of the same land to them under this new scheme and it was only when they did not succeed in this attempt that they chose to file an appeal against the order of cancellation of the lease under the Grow More Food Scheme. This order was challenged in the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore. The High Court, by judgment dated the 6th November 1969, held that the petition suffered from laches and dismissed it. The petitioners seek permission to file an appeal against the said order.
2. It is not disputed by Mr. Munawar Akhtar, learned counsel for the petitioners that' the learned Member, Board of Revenue passed the impugned order on the 21st April 1963, and the writ petition was filed in 1966, after the expiry of three years. Learned counsel, however, contended that the petitioners were, bona fide, pursuing their remedy to obtain the land in dispute under the Tubewell Scheme and, therefore, the time taken in those proceedings should be excluded for taking into consideration the petition filed by the petitioners. The argument of the learned counsel has not impressed us. It is not possible for us to hold that the petitioners were, bona fide, pursuing their remedy before the Tubewell Scheme authorities. In any case, by doing so, they had acquiesced in the impugned order. Their petition clearly suffered from laches and the High Court was perfectly justified in dismissing it on the ground. There is no force in the petition which is dismissed.