The petitioners through this petition have called in question the order dated 21.07.2008 passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Vehari whereby he has directed the District Officer (Revenue), Vehari to comply with the order dated 06.04.1999 passed by this Court in W.P. Nos, 316/1986 to 318/1986.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the land measuring 208 Kanals 08 Marlas situated in Chak No, 58/WB was leased out to the Respondents No, 4 to 10. Subsequently the Respondents Nos,4 to 10 in pursuance of notification dated 03.09.1979 applied for the grant of proprietary rights of the land under their cultivation. The District Collector vide order dated 14.03.1984 allowed proprietary rights of the land to the extent of 100 Kanal out of the land measuring 208 Kanal 08 - Marlas. Feeling dis- satisfied, the Respondents No, 4 to 10 moved an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan and the same was dismissed vide order dated 03.07.1985. Thereafter, the Member Board of Revenue also rejected the respondents' appeal vide order dated 05.03.1986.
Being aggrieved, the Respondents No, 4 to 10 moved this Court through Writ Petition Nos, 316, 317 and 318 of 1986 which were accepted vide judgment dated 06.04.1999 whereby it was held as follows:-- "Admittedly, the writ petitioners are three brothers. They have independent families. Para 5 of the Notification dated 03.09.1979 has clearly mentioned the persons included in a family. It soya:-'Size of Grant' The size of grant under these conditions shall be one subsistence holding or thereabout per family. The family for the purpose shall include the lessee's parents, minor children, husband, wife or wives and dependents. Thus, the impugned order are patently illegal and those are so declared and set aside. The writ petitions (W.P. 'No, 316/86, W.P.No, 317/86 and W.P. No, 318/86) are allowed and the petitioner in each of the said writ petitions, is entitled to 100 Kanals of land independently."
The Province of Punjab through Member Board of Revenue (Colonies) filed C.P.No, 1683-L, 1685-L of 1999 and assailed the above cited order of this Court before Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan but the same were dismissed vide order dated 15.11.2000 being time barred. Consequent upon the dismissal of the petitions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, Respondents Nos,4 to 10 applied for the allotment of land. The District Officer (Revenue), Vehari vide order dated 22.02.2008 rejected the application of Respondent Nos,4 to 10. Thereafter, the Respondent Nos,4 to 10 filed an appeal under Section 161 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 read with Section 7 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 before the Executive District Officer (Revenue) which was accepted vide order dated 21.07.2008 and the case was remanded to the District Officer, Vehari with a direction to implement the afore cited directions of this Court given vide order dated 6.4.1999 passed in the W.P. No, 316/1986. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a `Kachi Basti' was constructed on the state land situated in Chak No, 56/WB and the 'Bash' is called as 'Bash Rait Wali'. The land was barren and based on sand dunes and the people of the village including the petitioners, having no home, started living at this 'Basti' in the year 1975 and later on their names were duly incorporated in the voters list; that the petitioners applied to the Board of Revenue for the grant of proprietary rights and despite hectic efforts no action has so far been taken on their applications; that the land situated in 'Basti' was never allotted to Respondents No, 4 to 10 and, therefore, they with malafide intention and to cause harassm ent to the petitioners has applied for grant of alternate land in Khasra No, 19/5 to 7, 13 to 19 and 23 to 24; and, that the order dated 21.07.2008 passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Vehari is illegal.
4. Conversely, the learned Assistant Advocate General while making reference to the comments submitted by the District Officer (Revenue) submits that the petitioners are not in possession of the disputed land which is vacant at the spot; and, that no scheme for survey is operative in the field.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
6. The Executive District Officer (Revenue) through impugned order dated 21.07.2008 has directed the District Officer (Revenue), Vehari to implement the order dated 6.04.1999 passed by this Court in W.P. No, 316/1986 and it would be advantageous to reproduce the operative part of the order which reads as under:-- "I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. The request of the appellants for the lease of state land situated in Chak No, 56/WB, Vehari has not been acceded to by the Lower Court on the ground that there exists no policy. I am of the view that the Lower Court has not complied with the orders of Hon'ble High Court dated 06.04.1999 passed in Writ Petition No, 316/1986 to 318/1986, whereby the appellants were declared entitled to state land measuring 300 Kanals. Therefore, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order is hereby set-aside. The District Officer (Revenue), Vehari is directed to implement the order of Hon'ble High Court dated 6.4.1999 both in letter and spirit."
The petitioners after the lapse of one year and nine months, have assailed the validity of the above said order and no reason for this delay has been given. The instant petition suffers from laches as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of 'Manager, Jammu & Kashmir, State Property in Pakistan Vs. Khuda Yar and another' (PLD 1975 SC 678) and 'Dr. Muhammad Shahid Mian and another Vs. Faiz-ur-Rehman Faiz' (PLD 2011 SC 676) has declared that the reasonable period for filing Constitutional Petition is ninty days. Besides above, the issue whether the petitioners are in possession of the disputed land or whether the disputed land is vacant are controversial facts and in view of law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Collector of Customs, Lahore and others Vs. Universal Gateway Trading Corporation and another' (2005 SCM R 37), it cannot be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Notwithstanding the above, the order dated 21.07.2008 passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Vehari, warrants no interference by this Court as through the impugned order a simple direction has been issued to the District Officer (Revenue), Vehari to implement the order dated 06.04.1999 passed by this Court in W.P. No, 316/1986.
8. In view of above, this petition lacks merits and, therefore, the same is dismissed in limine.