KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SAEED, C.J.--- This review petition is directed against the judgment of this Court, dated 17-3-2006.
2. The Custodian vide his order, dated 27-3-1991, on the basis of allotment order, issued Proprietary Rights Transfer Order in favour of respondent No,2. The petitioners filed a review petition before the Custodian on 28-2-1994 which was dismissed in default of appearance on 25-11-1998. Again on 29- 3-2000 they filed second review petition before the Custodian which was ultimately dismissed on merits by him on 20-6-2002. The order of the Custodian was challenged in a writ petition before the High Court which was dismissed vide judgment, dated 22-12-2005. A petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by this Court vide judgment under challenge dated 17-3-2006. Hence this review petition.
Even though various grounds were taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of this review petition, however, he stressed only two points. Firstly that at the time when respondent No,2 migrated with his mother from the occupied part of the State, he was only six years old and was, therefore, included in the family members of his elder brother, Nek Muhammad, who has obtained allotment of 64 Kanals of land. In these circumstances he was wrongly treated as separate family. Therefore, allotment made in his favour is a nullity in the eye of law. His second point is that the petitioners are old tenants of the disputed land. This point was raised before the Custodian and the same was refuted by other side, therefore, the Custodian should have framed an issue to this effect and then resolved the same after receiving evidence from the parties.
Alternatively he argued that his clients are old tenants and the land remained in the continuous possession without payment of any rent to true owners or the allottees, as such their long possession over the same had ripened into ownership which had extinguished the rights of ownership of true owners or any allottee, but this question has not been taken into consideration.
The order of allotment in favour of respondent No,2 was void ab initio as he being minor at the time of his migration was not competent to obtain allotment of land. According to the learned counsel, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has held in some authorities that where an order is void ab initio, the question of limitation does not carry any weight. He, therefore, craved that the point of limitation in the instant case should not be given much importance.
4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the order under review it is clearly laid down that, whenever status of a person or property as to whether he or such property is evacuee or not is involved, the Custodian has got exclusive jurisdiction under section 41 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act to declare so. In the order of the Custodian, the status of respondent as evacuee perhaps was not disputed as such this question was not resolved by him. Presumption of correctness is attached to all the official acts, however, there, is no dispute that this presumption is rebutable in case some convincing evidence is brought on record. In the present case the evacuee land comprising various survey numbers has been allotted to respondent No,2 by the Rehabilitation Authorities which fact proves that he has been taken as a refugee of 1947 and evacuee land has been allotted to him in that capacity. Even the case of petitioners is that respondent No,2 migrated with his mother and elder brother when he was too small. This itself shows that his father was not alive at the time when whole family migrated to liberated part of the State. Like his elder brother and any other member of family, the presumption would be that he had also inherited property which was left by his father. Therefore, against such property he was justified to obtain allotment independently. Even otherwise whether all the brothers constitute one family or not, is a question of multiple allotment which cannot be resolved by this Court in exercise of its review jurisdiction. As this would be a disputed question of fact which even otherwise cannot be resolved without recording evidence of the parties.
5. The second question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are old tenants and they had not paid rent either to Hindu owners or respondent No,2, as such their long possession has matured into ownership. No doubt the governing principles of C.P.C. are applicable before the Custodian while resolving disputes under the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. However, this question should have been first mooted before the Custodian, the High Court and then before this Court. The same having been raised for the first time in review jurisdiction cannot be considered at this belated stage.
6. The last point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no limitation is provided against a void order. The first review petition was filed on 28-2-1994 against the Proprietary Rights Transfer Order issued in favour of respondent No,2 on 27-3-1991 on the basis of allotment obtained by him on 23-6-1990. The review petition was filed after more than three years which was dismissed in default of appearance on 25-11-1998. Without moving any application for its restoration, another review petition was filed on 29-3-2000 which was dismissed by the Custodian on 20-6-2002. The learned Custodian was, therefore, justified in law to hold that the review petition filed by the petitioners was barred by limitation. In this regard the petitioners cannot blame anybody else except themselves for their indolence and negligence. This Court in the cases reported as Mirza Lal Hussain v. Custodian of Evacuee Property and others 1992 SCR 214 and Muhammad Ilyas Khan v. Sardar Muhammad Hafeez Khan 2002 PLC (C.S.) 1282 has laid down that even a void order adversely affecting the interests of a person should be challenged by him within a reasonable time. The authority cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners titled Fateh Muhammad v. Muhammad Shafi and others Civil Review Petition No,22 of 2000 decided on 25-4- 2001 has nothing common with the facts of present case and is not applicable to the case in hand.
7. Through the instant review petition, the petitioners in fact want rehearing of whole of the case on the basis of new ground which is not permissible under law. Therefore, this review petition being devoid of force is hereby dismissed.