1. NASIM HASSAN SHAH, J----The petitioners are the heris of the late Haji Ahmad Jan who abandoned two gardens situated in village Nimri and Sadhura Khurd within the Municipal Limits of Delhi, which together measured 73 Bighas 19 Biswas. On 18-12-1954 a garden known as Harichand Garden Basti Bela Ram, Badami Bagh, Lahore measuring 11 Acres was temporarily allotted in favour of the petitioners: mean while, the case for verification of the gardens abandoned by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners in Delhi was being scrutinized in the Central Record Officer at Lahore.
2. Malik Aslam Hayat O.S.D. Additional S.C. Central Record Office issued notice to the petitioners to appear before him on 1-2-1961 to show cause why the allotment of the garden should not be cancelled because the petitioners claim under Schedule IV had not been verified.One of the petitioners, Mohammad Rafi, appeared on 1-2-1961 in response to the notice, and was required to produce the entitlement certificate.The petitioners by that application dated 9-2-1961 pointed out that it was the duty of the O.S.D. Of the Central Office to verify the pending claims of the petitioners and to issue a certificate to them and until he had done so he should keep the allotment cases pending.However, instead of following the above course, the said officer passed an order on 12-6- 1961 cancelling the allotment of the garden earlier made in their favour on 18-12-1954 on the ground of non-adjustment of Produce Index Units.On 30-6-1961, the petitioners filed a review petition drawing his attention to the fact that claim of their mother stood verified for 1071 Produce Index Units and covered a greater part of the garden and also drawing his attention to the fact that the petitioners, claim was to be verified by him, however, this petition was also dismissed on 30-9-1961, without hearing the petitioners.In the meanwhile, the petitioners has been summarily ejected from the garden in question and the same allotted again by the order of Malik Aslam Hayat O.S.D.
3. Central Record Officer/Additional S.C. Dated 2-10-1961 in favour of respondent No. 4.
4. Major Ishaq Muhammad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently contended before us that both the order of cancellation of the garden dated 12-6-1961 and the order of allotment thereof in favour of respondent No. 4 on 2-10-1961 were orders passed without jurisdiction and void because Malik Aslam Hayat was not competent either to cancel the garden or to make its allotment because the competent authority in this regard was the Garden Allotment Committee.
5. Unfortunately, however, the petitioners instead of challenging both these orders, which according to them, were passed without jurisdiction, continued to pursue their case for verification and their entitlement. Mr. Ishaque Muhammad Khan took pains to show us how Malik Aslam Hayat and thereafter his successors had thwarted all attempts to get the verification of the Gardens abandoned by them in India completed at an early date and in fact the verification order was not passed until 5-8-1967. Thereafter, the petitioners applied to the Garden Allotment Committee, for the restoration of the Garden which was earlier allotted to them but this prayer was rejected by the Settlement Commissioner (Lands/Chairman, Garden Committee) vide his order dated 4-6-195R, on the ground that since the allotment of the garden was cancelled from the names of the petitioners as long ago in June, 1961 and was allotted to respondent No. 4 in October, 1961 and the petitioners had not agitated the said order with regard thereto it would not be proper to reopen the matter at this stage.
6. Dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioners filed a writ petition (W. P. No. 571 R/68) before the Lahore High Court which was eventually heard and disposed of by a learned Single Judge 1-10- 1979. The learned Judge observed that the first order canceling the allotment of garden area was made on 12-6-1961 and the allotment thereof was further made in favour of respondent No. 4 on 2- 10-1961. The review petition of the petitioner filed against the order of canceling their allotment was rejected on 30-9-1961 but the petitioners slid not take appropriate steps thereafter to get the said order set aside and they approached the High Court after a lapse of about seven years. The explana--tion for condo nation of delay was not plausible and therefore the inordinate delay could not be condoned. The petition was, therefore, dismissed. It may be mentioned that in the course of his order the learned Judge while elaborating his remarks that in their rights, appropriate steps were not taken by the petitioners to get the impugned orders set aside, he had observed that it was open to the petitioners to challenge the validity of the cancellation of their allotment under para. 20 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme but they did not avail of the said remedy within a reason-- able time.
7. Major Ishaq Muhammad Khan, in support of this petition for leave appeal, drew our attention to para. 20 of the Rehabilitation Scheme and pointed out that para. 20 was not attracted in this case because its provisions were applicable to allotment of rural land and not to urban land whereas in this case the garden in question was an urban garden. He also drew our attention to various applications and other 'steps taken by the petitioners to get the entitlement verified to show that the petitioners had not slept over their rights and that, in fact, it was the departmental authority which was responsible for the delay and that the petitioners could not be made to suffer for their tardiness. Attention was drawn in this connection to the well' established principle that no one can be made to suffer for the acts of the Court.
8. Although there is some force in these submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners but the overall assessm ent of the case shows that the view taken by the learned Judge in the High Court that the petitioner's writ petition was liable to dismissal because it suffered from laches cannot be taken exception to. The case of the petitioners themselves before us is that the order of cancellation of the garden passed on 12-6-1961 and the subsequent order of allotment thereof to respondent No. 4 dated 2-10-1961 are orders without jurisdiction having been passed by an authority who was not competent to do so, namely, Malik Aslam Hayat, O. S. D., Central Record Office because the competent authority was the Garden Allotment Committee. It was also conceded before us that no appeal or revision was available in the relevant law against the orders of the U. S. D., Central Record Office and, therefore, a writ petition could certainly had been filed to challenge the validity of the said orders as soon as they were passed. Instead of doing so, the mistaken course of approaching the departmental authorities to verify the claim was pursued and it was not until 1967 that the claim could be verified and, thereafter, an application for reconsideration of the orders passed on 12-6-1961 and 2-10-1961 which orders naturally could not be re-opened after that length of time.
9. This petition is, therefore dismissed hereby.