1. ' SARDAR ABDUL HAMEED KHAN, J.---This writ petition has been filed under section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974.
2. ' The precise facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are that land measuring 5 Kanals 1 marla comprising survey No, 1250 situated in Village Hill Surang Tehsil Dhirkot District Bagh was allotted to the petitioner being a local destitute through P.R.T.O. It is alleged that respondents Nos. 4 to 6, filed a time barred review petition after 8 years, before the Custodian Evacuee Property challenging the allotment and P.R.T.O. Certificate of the petitioner on 27-11-2002, who accepted the same vide order dated 10-6-2004. The petitioner stated that the impugned judgment of the Custodian dated 10-6- 2002 is illegal, without lawful authority, without jurisdiction, against law, fact and ineffective against the rights of the petitioner and is liable to be set aside. The petitioner prayed that this writ petition may be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 10-6-2004 may be set aside.
3. ' Notices were issued to the respondents. In spite of proclamation, the respondents failed to appear before the Court, therefore, ex parte proceeding was ordered against respondents Nos. 1 to 3 on 2- 10-2006 and against respondents Nos. 4 to 9 on 4-11-2008. Ex parte arguments have been heard.
4. ' Syed Nazir Hussain Shah Kazmi, the learned counsel for petitioner argued that the review petition filed by the private respondents was hopelessly time barred. He argued that there are 30 days for filing review petition under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957. The learned counsel submitted that the respondents did not file any application for condonation of delay or affidavit in support of application and the allotment of the respondents was also not recorded in the revenue record. The learned counsel also argued that the land in dispute was allotted to the petitioner in accordance with law and proprietary right certificate was issued in favour of respondents against Khasra No, 1240 and not against Khasra No, 1250. The learned counsel prayed that the instant writ may kindly be accepted. He referred the following case-law in support of arguments:--
(1) 2001 CLC 1149
(2) 1992 SCR 214 and
(3) 1993 SCR 44.
5. ' I have heard the ex parte arguments and gone through the record with my utmost care and caution.
6. The review petition filed by the private respondents before the Custodian was barred by limitation clearly, for which no explanation was given before respondent No, 1 though, this is a subsequent allotment, even then the review petition was time barred and filed after the lapse of 8 years without showing explanation of delay. The petition was admitted for regular hearing on the point of period of limitation. This was the only point to be considered by respondent No, 1, hence the impugned order is of no legal effect and passed without lawful authority by respondent No, 1, which has not looked into by the Custodian, keeping in view the principle governing the law of limitation as laid down by the apex Court in the above said case-law, the petition merits acceptance.
7. ' The upshot of the above discussion is that this writ petition .For issuance of a writ of certiorari is accepted ex parte with the declaration that the judgment and order of learned Custodian dated 10-6-2004 and allotment made and P.R.T.O. Issued in favour of respondents Nos. 4 to 6 is of no legal effect and has been passed without lawful authority which is hereby set aside and the P.R.T.O.
8. Issued in favour of petitioner is hereby restored.