' This judgment proposes to decide 12 review petitions, one in the hand and others detailed in the schedule appended herewith which were filed at Multan Bench of this Court and after change of territorial limit of the Bench, have been fixed here for decision, as all these petitions arise in alike circumstances, involve similar questions of law/facts and require determination/interpretation of the same provisions of law. All the review petitions have been filed for recall of a consolidated judgment by this Court dated 22-4-2004 dismissing the Constitutional petitions; filed by the petitioners against a consolidated judgment dated 15-5-1999, whereby the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore while exercising suo motu review jurisdiction for the second time, rescinded the earlier judgment given by his predecessor dated 22-6-1995 passed on review petitions of the petitioners.
2. Succinctly, relevant facts are that the land owned by the Provincial Government in possession of the petitioners was initially allotted under Grow More Scheme by the District Collector under duly approved scheme of the Government of the Punjab but the allotments so made, most of those, subsequently became part of the prohibited Zones and few of them were consequently allotted alternative lands to the allottees, who after permission under section 19 of the Punjab Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, transferred the land so allotted. Most of the petitioners are transferees from the allottees who have also deposited governmental dues. Subsequently under the orders of Board of Revenue Punjab, an Audit Team reported certain irregularities in allotments of alternative lands to the allottees where upon the Board of Revenue Punjab, directed the Commissioner, Multan Division to grant 'permission to the Collector Khanewal to review the order of his predecessor under section 163 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967. The Commissioner, Multan Division, accordingly, issued a notice under section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, to the allottees and they filed the revision petitions against the same before the Member, Board of Revenue Punjab (C) which were dismissed on 12-4-1975. The petitioners filed review petitions which were accepted by the learned Member(Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore on 22-6-1995, who keeping in view long affiliation of the petitioners with the land in their possession, allowed them to purchase the land on payment of current market price with 10 per cent. Surcharge payable in 10 half yearly equal instalments. The learned. Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore also allowed the petitioners adjustment of any payment already made by them with regard to the land subject to dispute. The petitioners were directed to deposit first instalment within three months from the receipt of the order.
3. As the facts go, Chief Minister, Punjab directed the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, to review his orders dated 22-6-1995 which led to filing of Constitutional petitions before this Court in (Writ Petition No,14522 of 1995), which was disposed of on 4-6-1996 on the statement of the learned Additional Advocate-General ,(Ch. 'Muhammad Ashraf, A.A.-G.) that Board of Revenue Punjab shall proceed in the matter, on case to case basis being uninfluenced by any order passed by the Chief Minister, Punjab, and would review the order if needed in the circumstances of each case. Whereafter, the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue; Punjab, Lahore, while exercising suo motu review power recalled the order dated 22-6-1995 in all the cases leading to filing of Constitutional petitions before the learned Single Judge in Chamber of this Court. The learned Single Judge in Chamber of this Court, through a consolidated judgment dated 22-4-2004 dismissed all the petitions taking the view that Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore, in pursuance of the order passed in Writ Petition No,14522 of 1995 dated 4-6-1996, correctly passed the order impugned therein. The petitioners now seek review of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in chamber dated 22-4-2004 by invoking the provisions of Order XLVII, rule 1 read with section 114, C.P.C. On the ground that earlier decision in Writ Petition No,14522 of 1995 by this Court relied in the order under review, related to Fish Farm Allotments, hence the same did not furnish lawful basis of the order by the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. In response to notice by this Court, respondents appeared and were represented through their counsel.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Additional Advocate-General and the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue Punjab incorrectly relied on the judgment dated 4-6-1996 in Writ Petition No,14522 of 1995, to the disadvantage of the petitioners as the same did not relate to land of the petitioners which was originally allotted under Grow More Scheme. It was further submitted that this error was apparent on the face of the record, justifying the review of earlier judgment of this Court. It was also submitted that in spite of submission at the bar that the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore had no jurisdiction to sit in appeal against its own order passed in review, as the second review was not permissible and that too, in suo motu powers but this aspect of the matter was not decided through the order under attack, hence this lapse was enough to invoke the provisions of section 114 and Order XLVII, rule 1, C.P.C. It was argued with emphasized that most of the petitioners are purchasers of the, land from the allottees under Grow More Scheme, after permission of the Collector, under section 19 of the Punjab Colonization of Government Lands Act and they in spite of their entitlement to the land in their possession, were given a lawful right of the purchase at market rate with surcharge of 10 per cent.
Creating a vested right in the land but this aspect of the case, escaped notice of the learned Single Judge in Chamber of this Court, justifying the review in hand. According to the. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, judgment under review is neither well-based nor gives a lawful reasoning in support of it thence the same is liable to be reviewed especially when the petitioners have traced out the decision of the Full Board of the Punjab Board of Revenue to the effect that in similar circumstances, other persons were granted right to purchase the land. According to him, this fresh evidence which was not within the knowledge of the petitioners at the time of decision of their writ petitions, did furnish a lawful basis for the prayer now made. It was also argued on behalf of the petitioners that the order under review is working against their interest because the order impugned in the writ petitions was discriminatory.
5. The learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the respondents supported the order under review and by refuting the petitioner's arguments, maintained that the petitioners have already challenged the order of the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab dated 15-5-1999 before the Civil Court, pending which a Constitutional petition was incorrectly filed. It was further submitted that the petitioners approached this Court with unclean hands out of concealment of material facts, hence, their writ petitions were correctly dismissed. It was further argued that no case for review within the parameters of provisions of rule 1 of Order XLVII, C.P.C. Has been made out because all the facts now canvassed by them were within their knowledge at the time of hearing of the petitions. It was further emphasized that the matters urged before this Court at the time of hearing of the writ petitions, not noted in the judgment, will be deemed to have been turned down. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, respondent No,1 was equipped with jurisdiction to suo motu review its own order, whenever fraud, misrepresentation or lack of jurisdiction comes to his knowledge.
6. We have minutely considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record with their assistance. The order impugned in the writ petitions passed by respondent No,1 on 15-5-1999 which was challenged through different writ petitions filed around 16-9-2003, after lapse of more than 4 years, apparently were suffered from lathes. There is no period of limitation prescribed for filing of a Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 but it has to be filed within a reasonable time.
What is the reasonable time, has been interpreted by the superior judiciary of this country as time requisite for filing of appeals/revisions before this Court which is normally three months. The order dated 15-5-1999 revealed that it was passed after hearing the petitioners and their counsel who were marked present at the time of hearing. Meaning thereby that they were aware of the order, dated 15-5-1999 but in spite of it, filed the Constitutional petitions after four years, without explaining the laches. The petitioners did not move any application for condonation of laches by giving reasons, hence, inordinate unexplained delay in approaching this Court could not have been condoned. Reference in this behalf can be made to the judgments in the case of Khiali Khan v. Haji Nazir and 4 others PLD 1997 SC 304.
7. Record further revealed that most of the petitioners have already filed their respective suits before the concerned Civil Court challenging the order of respondent No,1 dated 15-5-1999 and those suits are reported to be still pending before the trial, appellate/revisional Courts. Pending determination of civil suit, invocation of Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court out of concealment of those proceedings was not only with unclean hands/mala fide but also could not have been done, at law. Reference in this behalf can be made to the judgment in the case of Haji Muhammad Ashraf v. The District Magistrate, Quetta and 3 others 2000 SCMR 238; Brig. Sahibdad Khan v.
Secretary, Colonies, Board of Revenue, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and 5 others PLD 2000 Lah. 244; Haji Bossa Limited and others v. The Federal Government of Pakistan through The Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Food and (Agrarian Management), Islamabad and another 1986 CLC 1193.
8. Adverting to the grounds raised in support of instant review petitions i,e, non-availability of second review power with respondent No,1 and that too, suo motu or earlier decision of Full Board of the Punjab Board of Revenue in support of purchase of land by an occupant or decision of this Court, dated 4-6-1996 being not related to Grow More Food Scheme or discriminatory in nature of the order by respondent No,1, may be good grounds for annulling the order of respondent No,1, dated 15-5-1999 but those will be considered by the Courts before whom respective suits/appeals/revisions of the petitioners are pending. This Court could not have issued a writ while exercising the pre-emptory Constitutional jurisdiction in a summary manner as the above noted assertions of the petitions required determination after recording of evidence. The petitioners had not placed on record of the writ petitions or on the file of review petition any proof that order by this Court dated 4-6-1996 related to Fish Farm Scheme. Reliance on this order by the learned Single Judge in Chamber of this Court was out of tentative assessment and the petitioners even in presence of this observation can still prove before the Civil Court that the order in Writ Petition No,14522 of 1995 did not relate to their cases. Petitioners failed to point out discovery of any new/important piece of evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within their knowledge at the time of decision of the Constitutional petition and at the same time no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason, justifying the review could be pointed out.
9. For the reasons noted above, the Constitutional petitions were correctly dismissed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber of this Court though on different premises yet no case for review of the judgment dated 22-4-2004 passed in Writ Petition No,3816 of 2003 (Multan Bench, Multan) could be made out hence, all these petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.