' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- Petitioner claiming to be Managing Director of a private limited company seeks leave to appeal against Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench judgment dated 20-11-2003 dismissing his writ petition against the order passed on review in connection with an order of the Member, Board of Revenue, N.-W.F.P. Rejecting the same.
2. Petitioner challenged the order passed by Additional Commissioner, Abbottabad dated 31-7- 1990 in connection with land acquisition proceedings before the Member, Board of Revenue which was dismissed vide order, dated 27-2-1992. Petitioner moved a review petition after the passage of more than a decade before the Member, Board of Revenue which was dismissed vide order dated 5-8-2003 on the premise that he had submitted an application for withdrawal of his petition.
Petitioner was still dissatisfied and moved another Review Petition No,29 of 2003 praying for review of the order of the Member, Board of Revenue dated 5-8-2003 asserting that the issue should have been referred for adjudication to the Civil Court having jurisdiction. Securing no relief he impugned the order passed by Member, Board of Revenue through writ petition before the Abbottabad Bench of the Peshawar High Court which has been dismissed through the impugned judgment.
3. We have heard the petitioner in person and gone through the impugned order as well as the application made by the petitioner before the M.B.R. For review of the earlier order and revision application against the order of Additional Commissioner, Abbottabad.
4. In our considered opinion the High Court while non-suiting the petitioner in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction has passed a just, fair and proper order as writ jurisdiction could not be exercised after inordinate delay of 10/11 years without any compelling circumstances or a sufficient cause. The prayer of the petitioner before the Member, Board of Revenue that his case should have been referred to the Civil Court for adjudication was completely misconceived and against all canons of law which could not be allowed by the said respondent.
5. Since the entire exercise by the petitioner against respondent No,2 appears to be tainted with mala fide, while dismissing this petition and refusing leave to appeal we impose special costs of Rs,10,000 to be deposited in the office of this Court within three days for payment to respondent No,2 failing which the same shall be recovered through process of law.