CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J. --- Through the instant writ petition, the petitioners have challenged order dated 21.12.2001 passed by learned Senior Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore who dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners.
2. Precisely stated the facts as narrated in the writ petition are that the petitioners are in cultivating possession as tenants of land measuring 6665 kanals-3 marlas, Khasra No. 441, village Rawal, Tehsil Pindigheb which was resumed from its owner namely Malik Muhammad lqbal Khan vide mutation No. 16, dated 15.08.1961 and vested in the government under the West Pakistan. Land Reforms Regulation, 1959' (Martial Law Regulation No. 64 of 1959) alongwith his other lands of villages Ratrian, Nithial and villages Dhok Pelan, Khunda, Abwal, Bankai Tehsil Jandi, District Attock., Though the petitioners being tenants had vested legal right to get the suit land, but Malik Muhammad lqbal Khan (ex-owner) firstly got his ex-lands, which stood vested in the government, allotted in names of his trusted persons, i.e. Ghulam Muhammad Khan son of Suba Khan, his son Malik Muhammad Basharat and daughters Mrs. Chandni Begum, Mrs. Shah Jehan and his wife Noor Bhari vide mutations No. 27, dated 28.02.1966, 28 to 43 of 1966-67 dated 24.02.1967 who returned the same land to progeny of Malik Muhammad lqbal Khan, i.e. Malika Niaz Begum etc. Through mutations No. 108 of 1990 and others. The petitioners challenged the said transactions through a revisions petition which was dismissed by learned Senior Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Land Commissioner Punjab, Lahore. Hence this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that pursuant to resumption under Section 16 of said LR Regulation 1959, the suit land vested in the government free from any encumbrance or charge and the petitioners had a vested legal right to be given the aforesaid resumed land under the mandate of Section 19(1) which reads as under:---
19. Sale of resumed land. (1) Land resumed under Part IV shall in the first instance, be offered for sale, on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed, to the tenants who are in cultivating possession of it, and any such land not sold to such tenants, shall be offered for sale to such other persons, and on such terms and conditions, as may be considered suitable by the Commission."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the Land Reform Regulation (MLR 155)
1972 under Section 32 repealed said LR Regulation, 1959 (MLR 64), however, all the rights accrued thereafter were specifically saved by operation of same Section 32. Rights of tenants were protected under Section 25(7). Under Section 4, Chief Commissioner was made responsible for implementation of the LR Regulations within each province. Further argues that Section 18 of Land Reforms Regulations 1972 (MLR 115) created a specific mandatory legal right of grant of land, which vested in the government under provisions of para 13 or para 14, to the tenants who were recorded in cultivating possession in Kharif 1971 and 1972 or immediately surrendered under sub-para 1 of para 12. He avers that the said legal right of the tenants was emphatically reiterated in Land Reforms Policies 1972 and 1977 and particularly in speech of the Prime Minister dated 05.01.1977, emphasizing grant of the lands to the tenants in line with socio-economic provisions contained in Articles 2-A, 3, 37, 38 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The Land Reforms Ordinance-II of 1977 was promulgated for reinforcement, which was repealed under Section 35 and replaced by the Land Reforms Act, 1977.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argues that the provisions of law were misinterpreted by the concerned so-called authorities. Similarly, so-called auctions were held and the entire surrendered land was transferred either in the name of original owners or their nominees, therefore, the writ petition be accepted as under:-
(i) A declaration that the petitioners/tenants were entitled to get the afore-mentioned land measuring 6665 kanals-3 marlas of village Rawal resumed from Muhammad lqbal Khan as per mandate of Land Reforms Regulations,1959, '1972 and then 1977 and failure of the `official respondents to give said Sand to them is unlawful and without lawful authority .
(ii) A declaration that so-called auction/ transfer/allotment of said land made by the official respondents and all mutations by revenue officers sanctioned in favour of said dummies of said ex-owner namely Ghulam Muhammad Khan and his family are illegal, void ab initio without lawful authority, of no legal effect and be set aside.
(iii) A declaration that all subsequent mutations on the basis of entries of revenue record made as per said ovoid allotments and mutations including those of inheritance and further transfer back in favour of progeny of the ex-owner namely Malik Muhammad lqbal Khan are also void ab initio and nullity in law, thus, without lawful authority and of no legal effect and be set aside.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. Perusal of record highlights that the petitioners have challenged various auctions held on 12.08.1965. According to the contents of the writ petition, the suit land was measuring 6665 kanals 3 marlas which was resumed from Malik Muhammad lqbal and the same was transferred in the name of provincial government vide mutation No. 16. The petitioners have challenged all the proceedings after about 56 years. Admittedly, the land was resumed under Martial Law Regulations No. 64 of 1959, which was later on auctioned in favour of auction-purchaser and after confirmation of auctions, the said land was recorded in the revenue record in favour of the highest bidders.
8. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that all above orders were void, which shall be ignored as no limitation runs against a void order is misconceived because a void order is only a type of order but If it has created certain consequences, an aggrieved person must get rid of it. On the other hand, if it is accepted that no limitation runs'against a void order and a void order could be challenged even after decades, then the entire judicial system will collapse. One of the objects of legal system, particularly to prescribe limitation, is to settle rights of parties and further to provide certainty in human affairs and if it is accepted that no limitation runs against void order, then it will have the effect of unsettling the rights of parties. In this respect I am persuaded from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, reported as 2007 SCM R 914 and 2001 SCM R 1062.
9. In the circumstances, without touching the merits of the case, this writ petition is dismissed in limine on the sole ground of limitation. .