' FALAK SHER, J.--- This judgment will dispose of Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeals Nos.2466 to 2468 of 2004 having commonality of facts and stemming out of the same judgment of a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 5-7-2004.
2. Petitioner exerting political influence with the Provincial hierarchy got 8 Marlas plus prime commercial State land situated within the compound of the Municipal Committee, Sahiwal from the Member, Board of Revenue, securing relaxation of the ban from the Chief Minister, Punjab precipitating in sale-deed dated 29-10-1994, in violation of the Municipal Committee's Policy, keeping the latter in utter darkness, at the rate of Rs,75,000 per Marla addressing an application to the Chief Secretary, Punjab prayed to enable him to earn his livelihood being an unemployed person.
3. The Municipal Committee, Sahiwal upon learning of the devious mechanism adopted by the petitioner on his endeavour to acquire possession, moved the Member, Board of Revenue for recalling of the sanction/approval order and the sale-deed based thereupon, which did not mature into reality due to the Chief Minister's restraint order, dated 28-11-1994, impelling a public interest litigation instituted by the President of Anjuman-e-Tajiran through Writ Petition No,4039 of 1995 before the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, wherein a learned Judge initially suspending the order of Member, Board of Revenue, eventually directed him to dispose of the case afresh within the contemplation of section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 which though matured into reality on 4-7-1998, but the petitioner manoeuvred its review on 13-4-2000, beyond the statutory period of 90 days perceived by section 8(2) of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957, without notice to the Municipal Committee, the Provincial Government and the contemporary contender.
4. Which was set aside by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, granting the Municipal Committee's Writ petition (Writ Petition No,6547 of 2000); that of the Province of Punjab through District Collector, Sahiwal (Writ Petition No,6399 of 2000) as well as that of the contemporary contender, Sh. Muhammad Asghar (Writ Petition No,6670 of 2000) vide the impugned judgment, dated 5-7-2004, observing that in the event the land is desired to be sold it should be effected through public auction with a right to the petitioner to participate therein, concluding as under:-- "(10) Against the abovesaid order respondent No,3 moved an application to the Governor of Punjab on 19-2-2000, who was also a political figure in those days and the said application was referred to the Member, Board of Revenue. The latter without issuing notice to the writ petitioners, who were earlier present at the time of passing of impugned order, dated 4-7-1998 passed by Member, Board of Revenue set aside the same. It has been argued on behalf of respondent No,3 that they were not aggrieved persons, hence there was no necessity to hear them. I have noticed no objection was raised by respondent No,3 at the time of hearing of earlier writ petition filed by Sh.
Muhammad Asghar, in which. Direction was made to the Member, Board of Revenue to dispose of the matter within one and a half months. The Member, Board of Revenue had heard all the concerned parties before passing order, dated 4-7-1998. However, when the Member, Board of Revenue passed the impugned order, dated 13-4-2000 did not bother to issue notice to Government of Punjab or Municipal Committee or Sh. Muhammad Asghar for affording the opportunity of hearing to them which was against the principle of natural justice and hit by the principle of audi alteram partem.
(11) Moreover, under section 8(2) of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957 the review petition could be filed within 90 days from the order of Board of Revenue. Admittedly the application was moved by respondent No,3 after one year and seven months of the passing of the earlier order and same was also not moved to the proper forum but it was moved to the Governor of Punjab, who referred the same to the Member, Board of Revenue, which illegally treated the same as review petition and without any application filed by respondent No,3 to condone the delay, the review application was accepted at a belated stage without giving any reason whatsoever for condonation of delay in filing the review petition by respondent No,3. Even otherwise, the said application was not supported by affidavit of respondent No,3 and no ground was mentioned in the said application for condoning the delay. The review application being barred by time was not maintainable and impugned order passed on the said application is not sustainable in the eye of law. I do not find any reason to decide the review application afresh which has been proved patently barred by time and respondent No,3 also failed to justify this Court for condoning the delay as the order impugned in the review application was very much in his knowledge on the very first day as it was passed in his presence.
(12) For the foregoing reasons, all the three writ petitions are accepted, the impugned order, dated 13-4-2000 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue is set aside and the review application filed by respondent No,3 being barred by time is dismissed."
5. Against which leave to appeal is being sought contending that learned High Court could have not substituted its findings with that of the Member, Board of Revenue; banked upon statutory provision of section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 could be pressed into service in case of fraudulent transactions, and the sale-deed could only be cancelled for violation of its terms.
6. With which we are not impressed because the learned Judge of the High Court, tracing out the sequence of events, has set aside the order of the Member, Board of Revenue of legal plane being violative of hearing to the Municipal Committee, the Provincial Government through the Collector and Sh. Muhammad Asghar and that too beyond the prescribed statutory period of limitation which knocks off the very foundation of the adventurous course recoursed to by the petitioner.
' Independent thereof, any intervention with the impugned order would tantamount to encouraging perpetuation of patent illegal devices to protect the illegitimate gains reaped by the political vultures for unjust enrichment at the cost of public exchequer which has eroded the very moral fabric of the society.
7. Resultantly, the same are dismissed and .