' MALIK SHAHZAD AHMED KHAN, J.---This writ petition has been filed to challenge the order dated 19- 8-2006 passed by the learned Senior Member Board of Revenue/Chief Land Commissioner Punjab, Lahore.
2. As per brief facts of the present case the petitioner was owner of land in village Lawa Tehsil Talagang; District Chakwat. The holding of the petitioner was determined by the learned Deputy Land Commissioner, Attock on 9-7-1977 and an area equal to 2366 produce index units was resumed under the Land Reforms Regulations 1972 (MLR 115 of 1972). The holding of the petitioner was scrutinized by inspection team of the Federal Land Commission and it was held that more area of the petitioner equivalent to 748 produce index units was liable to resumption. Therefore more land of the petitioner equivalent to 748 produce index units, was resumed vide order dated 6-8-1984 passed by the learned DLC, Attock. The choice of the petitioner/declarant was also considered at the time of passing the said order. The said resumption order was further confirmed by the Land Commissioner, Rawalpindi vide order dated 18-9-1986. The petitioner, after the lapse of almost Eighteen years, filed a Writ Petition No,826 of 2002 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 20-5-2002. It was observed in the said order that the writ petition was filed with the delay of about eighteen years so the same was hit by the principle of laches. Any how, it was also observed that the petitioner may approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance because the order impugned was appealable under the relevant law. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a revision petition before the learned Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab Lahore which has been dismissed vide the impugned order dated 19-8-2006; hence, the present writ petition.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the relevant provisions/sections of the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 (MLR 115 of 1972), about Resumption of Land, have been declared as unIslamic by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Qazalbash Waqf and others v.
Chief Land Commissioner and others (PLD 1990 SC 99); that the respondents cannot be allowed to allot resumed land of the petitioner to any one else and the said land is liable to be returned to the petitioner in the light of the above mentioned judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan.
He has further placed reliance on the case of Sardar Muhammad Jafar Khan Leghari v. Balochistan Land Commission, Quetta through its Secretary and others (1997 M LD 1934). He argued that possession of the resumed land is Still with the petitioner and he is still shown in possession of the land in question, in relevant Khasara Girdawaries; that the petitioner has been condemned unheard as he was not associated at the time of proceedings initiated for resumption of land in dispute; that as the impugned resumption order is illegal and void, therefore, the question of limitation would not arise against such an order; that the said order has wrongly been passed against the petitioner on the ground that his revision petition was barred by time, therefore, this petition may be accepted and resumed land of the petitioner may be returned to him and impugned resumption orders may be declared null and void.
4. On the other hand the learned A.A.-G. Has vehemently opposed this petition on the grounds that revision petition filed by the petitioner before respondent No, I was rightly dismissed as the same was hopelessly time barred; that the order of resumption was passed keeping in view the choice of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner could not challenge the said order; that the Attorney of the petitioner had been appearing during the impugned resumption proceedings and the petitioner was properly represented by his Attorney, therefore, he cannot claim that he was condemned unheard; that the impugned proceedings of resumption of the land of the petitioner were finalized, far earlier than the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Qazalbash Waqf and others v. Chief Land Commissioner Punjab Lahore and others (PLD 1990 SC 99); that the said judgment has no retrospective effects, therefore, this petition may be dismissed.
He has supported his above contentions with the case law reported as "Aacher and 5 others v. Dur Muhammad Usto and 8 others" 2002 SCM R 958 "Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab and others v.
Chief Administrator of Awe' Punjab" PLD 1998 Supreme Court 132 and "Mst. Ulfat Jan and 3 others v.
Deputy Land, Commissioner Bahawalpur" 2001 YLR 1539.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. The land of the petitioner was initially determined by Deputy Land Commissioner, Attock under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (MLR 115 of 1972) and it was held that an area equal to 2366 produce index units of the land of the petitioner was liable to be resumed. This was held vide order dated 9-7-1977. The holding of the ' petitioner/declarant was later on scrutinized by .The inspection team of Federal Land Commission and it was held that more land of the petitioner equivalent to 748 produce index units was liable to resumption. Therefore, more land of the petitioner equivalent to 748 produce index units was resumed vide order dated 6-8-1984 passed by the learned DLC, Attock. The said order was further confirmed by the learned Land Commissioner, Rawalpindi, vide order dated 18-9-1986.
' The petitioner, thereafter, remained silent for, as long as sixteen years. The petitioner, then, filed Writ Petition No, 826 of. 2002 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 20-5-2002. It was observed in the said order that the writ petition was filed with the delay of about eighteen years so the same was hit by the principle of laches. It was further observed that the impugned order was appealable under Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (MLR 115 of 1972) and the petitioner may seek his alternate remedy. The petitioner, then, filed a revision petition before the Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore in the year 2002. The said revision has been dismissed vide the impugned order dated 19-8-2006 as the same was filed with the delay of sixteen years and the same was hopelessly barred by time.
' The petitioner could not explain such a gross and inordinate delay in challenging the impugned orders. Although it is claimed by the petitioner that he was condemned unheard but it is evident from the -record that the petitioner had authorized Malik Mahar Dad son of Ahmad Khan who appeared on his behalf before the DLC, Attock in connection with the proceedings regarding determination of his holding. It is also evident from the record that the petitioner/declarant had given a choice in respect of the land surrendered by him. The said choice was given by the petitioner as per Annexure-A with the order dated 6-8-1984 passed by the learned DLC, Attock.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as the impugned order of resumption of the land of the petitioner is illegal and void, therefore, the question of limitation would not arise against such order. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not convincing on two counts. Firstly, as discussed above, the petitioner had complete knowledge of the impugned orders and he was not condemned unheard and secondly the petitioner has given no plausible explanation in challenging the impugned order after the lapse of almost 16 years. The above mentioned gross delay in challenging the, impugned order cannot be condoned merely on the ground that the impugned order was alleged to be void. Presuming without conceding that the impugned order was void even then it cannot be accepted that no limitation would run against such order. Void order is only a type of an illegal order and if it has created certain consequences, an aggrieved person must get rid of it, within the shortest possible time. If it is accepted that no limitation runs against void order then there may not be any limitation at all to challenge an illegal order by describing it as a void order. The land of the petitioner which was resumed vide the impugned orders has been allotted to different persons under Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (MLR 115 of 1972) and if the impugned order is disturbed then a third party will be prejudiced. I am fortified in my above mentioned views by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan given in the case of "Begum Syeda Azra Masood v. Begum Noshaba Moeen and others" 2007 SCM R 914. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan as under:-- "---Section 3---Void order---Limitation---Applicability---Void order is only a type of an illegal order and if it has created certain consequences, an aggrieved person must get rid of it---If it is accepted that no limitation runs against void order, then there may not be any limitation at all to challenge an illegal order by describing it as a void order, after any period say 5 years, 10 years, 20 years and so on---One of the objects of legal system, particularly to prescribe limitation; is to settle rights of parties and provide certainty in human affairs---If it is accepted that no limitation runs against void order, then it will have the effect of unsettling the rights and may affect transactions which may have taken place in the meanwhile and thus prejudice a third party. "
' The learned counsel for the petitioner has next contended that the land of the petitioner cannot be resumed and the same is liable to be returned as per law laid down by the Hon' ble Supreme Court of Pakistan C in the case of Qazalbash Waqf and others v. Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab Lahore and others (PLD 1990 SC 99). He submits that paras 2(7) 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 25 of Land Reforms Regulation 1972 (MLR 115 of 1972) and sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7(5), 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of Land Reforms Act, 1972 have been declared against the injunctions of Islam in the above said judgment. He has further argued that as the land of the petitioner was resumed under the above mentioned provisions of MLR 115 of 1972 which have been declared against the injunctions of Islam and as the Land of the petitioner was not allotted to any one before the target date fixed in the above mentioned judgment, i.e, 23-3-1990, therefore, the same may be returned to the petitioner.
In support of his above contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on "Sardar Muhammad Jaffar Khan Leghari and others v. Balochistan Land Commission, Quetta through its Secretary and others" (1997 M LD 1934).
' The said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not convincing. The land of the petitioner was finally resumed vide order dated 6-8-1984 passed by the learned Deputy Land Commissioner, Attock. The said order was further confirmed by the learned Land Commissioner, Rawalpindi vide order dated 18-9-1986. The decisive step by the Land Reforms Authorities regarding resumption of the land of the petitioner had already been taken, far earlier than the above mentioned target date fixed in Qazalbash Waqf case, i.e, 23-3-1990. The above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has no retrospective effect, therefore, the land of the petitioner which was already resumed far earlier than the above mentioned target date, cannot be retuned to him.
' A similar proposition came under discussion before the Hon' ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case "Shah Jehan Khan Abbasi v. Deputy Land Commissioner, Bahawalpur and another" 2006 SCM R 771. It was held in the said case as under:- "Para' 13---Land Reforms Act (II of 1977), Ss. 7 & 9---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)--- Resumption of excess land---Litigation concerning gift concluded on 10-7-1988---Authority thereafter resumed excess land---High Court dismissed Constitutional petition of petitioner alleging such resumption to be illegal for no material action having been taken by authorities before 23-3-1990---Validity---Declaration had been filed in year 1972---Land Commissioner had rejected petitioner's appeal on,7-5-1972---Deputy Land Commissioner in order dared 6.4.1981 had observed that petitioner had accepted surrender of marked area---Resumption, thus, stood finalized on such acceptance on 6-4-1981---Any dispute or litigation, existed about such land, would not be material in view of provision of S.9 of Land Reforms Act, 1977---Factuin of litigation would not negate or counter the vesting of property in Government---Material proceedings qua resumption had already been taken much prior to crucial date (23-3-1990) given in Qazalbash Waqf case PLD 1990 SC 99---Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave to appeal."
' Same view was taken by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court in the case of "Mst. Ulfat Jan and 3 others v. Deputy Land Commissioner Bahawalpur and 9 others" 2001 YLR 1539.
' The learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the above mentioned judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has declared the relevant paras of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (MLR 115 of 1972) regarding the resumption of excess land of land owners, to be repugnant to the injunctions of Islam and as the petitioner is a Muslim, therefore, the above mentioned judgment in Qazalbash Waqf case is to be given a retrospective effect. I am afraid I could not agree with this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Law declared by the courts was never retrospectively effective and it only takes effect after the announcement of the judgment or the date notified by the court. As the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has itself fixed a target date i.e, 23-3-1990 in the above-mentioned judgment, therefore, the said judgment has clearly no retrospective effect and the same cannot be implemented retrospectively. In my above mentioned views I am fortified by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Muhammad Younis and others v. Essa Jan and others" 2009 SCM R 1169, wherein it was held as below:- "Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [MLR 115] ---Preamble---Provisions of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 had been declared against the injunctions of Quran and Sunnah by the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court---Decision in said case would be effective from 23-3-1990---Law declared by courts was never retrospectively effective and it only takes effect after the announcement of the judgment or the date notified by the court.
' The learned counsel for the petitioner has lastly argued that as the resumed land of the petitioner was not allotted to any other person till the above mentioned target date fixed in the Qazalbash Waqf case i.e, 23-3-1990, therefore, the said land after the above mentioned target date cannot be allotted to any one and the same is liable to be returned to the petitioner in view of the law laid down in the case reported as Sardar Muhammad Jefar Khan Leghari v. Balochistan Land Commission, Quetta through its Secretary and others (1997 M LD 1934). The judgment referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In the said case the land of the petitioners was not resumed till the crucial date (23-3-1990) fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Qazalbash Waqf case and no action taken under para 13 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 in respect of the land in question till the above mentioned date.
As the land of the petitioners in the above said case was resumed after the crucial date i.e, 23-3- 1990, by the Land Reforms authorities, when relevant provisions, of the land reforms Regulation, 1972, ceased to have effect, therefore, the land of the petitioners of the above mentioned writ petition, was directed to be returned to them. The said judgment is not applicable to the case of the petitioner because, as discussed earlier the land of the petitioner was resumed far earlier than the target date fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the above-mentioned Qazaibash Waqf case. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any material illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders
8. In the light of above discussion, this petition being devoid of any force is hereby dismissed.