' SHAUKAT UMAR PIRZADA, J.---This Revision Petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3-10-1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Vehari, whereby the judgment and decree of the learned trial court dated 16-12-1990 were set aside and the suit of the predecessor of the respondents was decreed with costs.
2. The brief facts leading to this revision petition are that predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, namely, Niaz Ali, who died during the pendency of this litigation, was leased out land measuring 13-acres on 14-12-1956 under Grow More Food Scheme. This lease was to be expired in Rabi 1962, but in the meantime the same was allotted to Major Tufail Muhammad Saheed, Nishan- e-Haider and possession thereof was also delivered to the legal heirs of the said Saheed. The said predecessor of the respondents applied for the alternate State Land, whereupon the District Collector, Sahiwal vide order dated 21-11-1973 found him eligible for the allotment of alternate land in lieu of the aforesaid land, which was surrendered by him. Some State Land was available for the allotment in Chak No,257/EB, then falling within the jurisdiction of Sahiwal District, was allotted to the predecessor of the respondents by the District Collector, Sahiwal vide order dated 30-6-1976.
On the compliant of one Atta Muhammad to the effect that the said land situated within the prohibited zone/municipal limits, the District Collector reviewed the allotment order dated 30-6- 1976 and cancelled the same vide order dated 14-5-1984. The respondents' predecessor preferred appeal against the cancellation order dated 14-5-1984 before the Additional Commissioner, Multan, who partially accepted the same vide order dated 23.09.1986 by excluding a piece of land measuring 13-kanals 13-marlas comprising Khasra Nos.56/3/2, 8/1, 13/2 and 14/1 from the said allotment for the reason that the same was falling within the prohibited zone and restored the allotment for the remaining land. The respondents preferred revision petition against the said order dated 23-9-1986 before the Member Board of Revenue, which also failed and the predecessor of the respondents filed suit against the impugned orders passed by the Revenue Authorities including the order dated 23-9-1986. This suit was contested by the petitioner and out of divergent pleadings of the parties issues were framed. After recording the evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 16-12-1990: Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the respondents filed appeal, which was accepted by the learned Addl: District Judge, Vehari vide judgment and decree dated 3-10-1995 and the judgment and decree of the learned trial court was set aside and the respondents' suit was decreed, hence, this revision petition.
3. Learned A.A.-G. Who is representing the petitioner, has contended that the judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate court are illegal and unlawful, as the same have failed to note that the land in question measuring 13-kanals, 13 marlas was falling within the prohibited zone, hence, cannot be allotted to anyone. He has further contended that the judgment and decree of the learned trial court is based on record and law, therefore, the same may be restored.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has controverted the contention of the learned A.A.-G. And stated that the impugned judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate court are in accordance with record and law and supported the same. Learned counsel for the respondents has also seriously objected to the maintainability of this revision petition on the ground of limitation and stated that C.M.No,2/C of 1996 filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act is not maintainable. In support of his aforementioned contentions, he relied upon 1994 SCMR 975 and unreported judgment rendered on 29-6-2010 in Civil Revision No,601 of 1993.
5. I have heard learned A.A.-G. And learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
6. First of all, I will deal the objection of limitation. Admittedly, this revision petition is barred by time, as the same has been filed after the expiry of two days. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is not maintainable, as the Limitation Act is not applicable on revision petition filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Moreover, the petitioner, which is a Govt. Department and run by educated people, has failed to offer any plausible justification for causing this delay. The learned A.A.-G. Has contended that valuable rights of the Government are at stake, therefore, it is in the interest of justice that the petition be decided on merit rather than non-suiting it mere on technicalities. He has further contended that the time was consumed in the Law Department for approval of filing this revision petition and the delay is neither intentional nor wilful. The objection of the learned, counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has failed to offer good cause for each day of delay, therefore, not entitled for any concession, as therefore, not entitled for any concession, as valuable right has been accrued to the respondents, is not without substance. The petitioner has not been able to explain the delay with cogeht reason, therefore, not entitled for the A condonation of delay and the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is not maintainable, hence, dismissed. This view is supported by the judgment rendered in case titled 'Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board, Govt. Of Pakistan, Lahore v. President of Quetta Hindu Punchayat Masjid Road, Quetta and others" reported in PLD 2010 Quetta 4, the relevant portion of which reads as under:-- "It is settled principle of law and the superior Courts time and again held that the person, seeking condonation of delay, must explain delay of each and every day to the satisfaction of the Court and should also establish that the delay has been caused due to reason beyond his control. When the delay in filing application is seemingly due to mere negligence and careless of the applicant, who failed to pursue his case with due diligence, then he is not entitled to any indulgence by the Court."
' The above view is further supported by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the judgment rendered in case titled Muhammad Ashfaq v. Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and another (PLD 2008 Supreme Court 703), the relevant portion of which is as under:-- ' while the settled law on the subject is that it is incumbent upon a litigant to explain the delay of each and everyday for not approaching the Court of law within the prescribed period of limitation.
The application filed by the petitioner, which otherwise, was not maintainable, was barred by 13 years, there was no sufficient cause to condone the delay and the learned Tribunal rightly refused to condone the delay for the reasons stated by it."
'Even otherwise the impugned order of the learned Addl: District Judge, Vehari is well reasoned, in accordance with the record and law. The learned lower appellate court has rightly observed that the cancellation order is illegal for the reason that the District. Collector could not review its order dated 30-6-1976 without first obtaining permission from the competent authority, as required by section 163 of the Land Revenue Act, the relevant portion reads as follows:-- "(ii) Collector, without first obtaining the sanction of the Executive District Officer (Revenue), and no order shall be reviewed by any other Revenue Officer, without first obtaining, the sanction of the Revenue Officer to whose control he is immediately subject ; "
It has been rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents that there is nothing on the record to show that requisite permission was obtained by the District Collector. This important aspect of the case was totally ignored by the Revenue Authorities, as also by the learned trial Court, therefore, the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court was rightly set aside by the learned appellate court. The order of the Additional Commissioner Exh.P.2 shows that the allotment to the extent of 13-kanals and 13-marlas was cancelled on the ground that the same fell within the prohibited zone municipal limits, as on 24-11-1984 when the said order was passed. This finding of the Additional Commissioner was in violation of the instructions of the Board of Revenue, according to which the limits of prohibited zone should be measured as existed at the time of allotment of land in question, which was firstly on 4-12-1956 when the land was originally allotted and then on 30-6-1976 when the alternate land was allotted and not when the proprietary rights are to be conferred. This view has been further supported by the judgment of august Supreme Court of Pakistan rendered in case titled 'Province of Punjab v. Ghulam Muhammad' reported in 1994 SCMR at page 975, the relevant portion of which reads as under:-- "(2) The respondent/tenant had been allotted land on temporary cultivation scheme which had to be resumed and thereafter he was settled on alternate land. When the question of conferment of proprietary rights to such tenants arose, the respondent was held not entitled to it on the ground that his allotted land fell within the prohibited zone and secondly it was excluded from allotment on the basis of being a part of 'KHUSK BIAS' river. On both these points the instructions of the Board of Revenue existed. As regards the prohibited zone, the instructions were made and not as when the proprietary rights are conferred. On this test, the allotment of the respondent was beyond three miles limits then applicable to him when he got the allotment but within five miles i.e,, with the limits when he was to be given proprietary rights. The Collector applied the latter.
' On the second question the Collector was required to exclude in consultation with the WAPDA authorities an area of 500 feet while running along with KHUSK BIAS' course. This consultation the Deputy Commissioner had not had with the WAPDA authorities.
(3)
(4) As regards the first question, the instructions of the Board of Revenue are already in existence.
On setting aside of the order of the Collector disentitling the respondent, the petitioner is entitled to be considered in accordance with law. Therefore, the jurisdictional question does not require further examination in this case."
' The record of the case reveals that the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence to establish that the land in question was falling within the prohibited zone on the date of its original allotment or when the alternate land was allotted to the respondents. The learned A.A.-G. Has failed to point out any illegality, irregularity, error of jurisdiction, mis-reading or non-reading of record/evidence in the In judgment and decree, which otherwise are in accordance with aw and require no interference by this Court.
7. In view of what has been discussed above, this revision petition is without merits, hence, dismissed. No order as to costs.