' MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, C.J.---The captioned appeal with the leave of the Court arises out of the judgment of the High Court dated 30th October, 2001, whereby Writ Petition No.162 of 2000 has been dismissed.
2. Necessary facts for the disposal of instant appeal are that the predecessor-ininterest of respondents Nos.3 to 6, Kaloo, filed a revision petition before the Rehabilitation Commissioner on 15th January, 1983, against the appellants herein alleging therein that he is allottee of land bearing Survey Nos.781, 782/387, 780/383 and 123, total measuring 13 kanals, 10 marlas, situate in village Bhimber. The land was allotted to him on 3rd October, 1950 and he is in possession of the same. It was being cultivated on his behalf. It was further alleged that the father of appellantGhulam Haider Gagroo, with the connivance of departmental authorities got allotment in his name in April, 1955 without cancelling the same from his name. There were proceedings pending before the Multiple Allotment Judge against Ghulam Haider Gagroo in respect of allotment including the one disputed in the revision petition and due to the proceedings before the Multiple Allotment Judge the proceedings before the Rehabilitation Commissioner were kept pending. After the decision of the matter from the Court of Multiple Allotment Judge the revision petition was decided by the Rehabilitation Commissioner on 24th April, 1996. The Rehabilitation Commissioner while accepting the revision petition restored the allotment in favour of Kaloo and cancelled the allotment from the name of father of appellants herein being a subsequent allotment. The appellants challenged the order of Rehabilitation Commissioner before the Custodian, who vide his order dated 5-9-2000 dismissed the revision petition. Feeling aggrieved from the order of Custodian the appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court. The learned Chief Justice in the High Court dismissed the writ petition vide impugned judgment dated 30th October, 2001.
3. Syed Nazir Hussain Shah Kazmi, the learned counsel for appellants Nos.1, 2 and 4, argued that the allotment in favour of father of appellants was made on 5th April, 1955. The revision petition before the Rehabilitation Commissioner was filed on 15th January, 1983, after a period of 28 years. It was hopelessly time-barred. The petitioners before the Rehabilitation Commissioner failed to explain delay. It was enjoined upon Kaloo to challenge the allotment within a reasonable time. No application for condonation of delay was filed by Kaloo. The learned counsel referred to the cases reported as Kh. Ghulam Qadir and another v. The Custodian of Evacuee Property and 13 others (2002 SCR 183), Muhammad Aslam and another v. Muhammad Rashid (2006 SCR 11) and Muhammad Habib Khan v. Nasiri Khatoon and 11 others (2006 SCR 22). He contended that while filing the written statement in the writ petition, Kaloo has admitted the fact of cancellation of his allotment and when the fact of cancellation is admitted, it was enjoined upon the party to challenge the allotment order within reasonable time. The learned counsel further argued that before the Adaptation of Evacuee Property Act, under the Rehabilitation Act, 1950, there was no concept of allotments rather the allotments were made by way of lease. If, for the sake of arguments, there is -any order of allotment in favour of respondent, Kaloo, it was just a lease and not an allotment. He referred to an unreported judgment of this Court titled Muhammad Sharif v.
Custodian (Civil Appeal No.7 of 1993 decided on 23rd October, 1993). Lastly the learned counsel argued that the appellant's possession on the land is proved from the record since 1955 and long- standing possession has always been considered a good evidence in support of one's claim. In support of this contention he referred to a case reported as Manzoor Hussain and others v. Mst.
Zahoor Fatima and others (1993 SCR 115).
' In the case titled Kh. Ghulam Qadir and another v. The Custodian of Evacuee Property and 13 others (2002 SCR 183) while dealing with the question of limitation it was observed that an application for review of judgment could be filed before the Custodian within prescribed period of thirty days. When the application for review of judgment has been filed after seven years, it is enjoined upon the party moving the application to explain delay. It was further observed that the lack of knowledge could be pleaded and in that case the petition could be filed within thirty days from the date of knowledge.
' In the case titled Muhammad Aslam and another v. Muhammad Rashid (2006 SCR 11) while dealing with the proposition of limitation it was observed that the question of limitation was not pressed by the counsel before the High Court and if the party asserts that it was pressed before the High Court, then there must be affidavit of the counsel for the party that the question of limitation was argued before the High Court and the learned Judge failed to resolve the same. It was further observed that the question of limitation is an important question and without crossing the bar of limitation the Courts are not justified to enter into the merits of the case and delay in limitation can be condoned if sufficient cause has been shown in the application seeking condonation of delay.
' In the case titled Muhammad Habib Khan v. Nasiri Khatoon and 11 others (2006 SCR 22) it was observed by this Court that delay can be condoned if some sufficient cause is furnished and sufficient cause was explained such a cause which is beyond the control of a party. A party which is negligent in his conduct cannot be given premium.
' In the case titled Manzoor Hussain and others v. Mst. Zahoor Fatima and others (1993 SCR 115) it was observed that long possession is a good evidence in support of one's title.
4. Mr. Muhammad Idrees Mughal, the learned counsel for appellant No.3, argued that appellant No.3 is a legal heir of original allottee, Ghulam Haider Gagroo. The respondents filed a revision petition before the Rehabilitation Commissioner, but she was not arrayed as party in the line of respondents. The appeal to her extent merits acceptance on the sole ground. He argued that the predecessor-in-interest of respondents, Kaloo, moved an application before the Multiple Allotment Judge for becoming a party where she was also a party. As appellant No.3 was a party in the proceedings before the Multiple Allotment Judge, therefore, the respondents had knowledge that she is one of the legal heirs of Ghulam Haider Gagroo, but despite this they have not arrayed her a party before the. Rehabilitation Commissioner.
5. While controverting the arguments, Raja Hassan Akhter, the learned counsel for respondents Nos.3 to 6, argued that the judgment of the High Court is perfectly legal. The Rehabilitation Commissioner recorded finding on facts and resolved that the father of respondents, Kaloo, was first allottee and subsequent allotment in the name of father of appellants, Ghulam Haider Gagroo, was made without cancelling the first allotment. The High Court has correctly resolved that the judgment of the Rehabilitation Commissioner is based on facts and findings of facts based on record cannot be disturbed in writ jurisdiction. The learned counsel vehemently argued that the predecessor-in-interest of respondents, Kaloo, petitioner before the Rehabilitation Commissioner, in categorical terms stated that he was a previous allottee and the land was allotted to Ghulam Haider Gagroo without cancelling the first allotment and he was not in knowledge of subsequent allotment. As soon as he attained knowledge, he immediately filed revision petition. The Rehabilitation Commissioner recorded findings which are based on record. It is crystal clear that Kaloo was not in knowledge of allotment of land in favour of father of appellants. The question of knowledge has been dealt with by the Rehabilitation Commissioner and the High Court in detail.
The learned counsel further argued that under section 18(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957, all the allotments made under the previous laws are protected as being valid allotments. He relied upon a judgment of this Court titled Muhammad Jameel v. Muhammad Siddique and another 1999 YLR 1089, whereby it was observed that under subsection (2) of section 18 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957, the allotments made by way of lease, if existed when the aforesaid Act came into existence, have been given validating effect. By this provision of law a validation has been given to every allotment of evacuee property made between 1st March, 1947 and the commencement of Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is an admitted position that father of respondents, Kaloo, was first allottee of the land because in allotment permit issued in favour of Ghulam Haider Gagroo, Kaloo is shown as allottee and in Column No.9 of allotment permit, it is entered that the allotment of land from the name of Kaloo has been cancelled and it is allotted in the name of Ghulam. Haider Gagroo, Sub-Judge, Bhimber. After reaching the conclusion that Kaloo was first allottee, there remain only two questions to be resolved; (i) whether the allotment in the name of subsequent allottee, Ghulam Haider Gagroo, was made after cancelling the allotment of Kaloo, the previous allottee and (ii) whether Kaloo was in knowledge of allotment in favour of Ghulam Haider Gagroo due to which his revision petition before the Rehabilitation Commissioner was time-barred.
7. We have perused the contents of revision petition filed by Kaloo before the Rehabilitation Commissioner. We deem it proper to reproduce the heading of revision petition which is as under:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' A perusal of heading of revision petition shows that he challenged the order of A.R.C. On the ground that without cancelling his allotment and without hearing him the land has been allotted in the name of father of respondents Nos.1 to 3 and husband of respondent No.4 therein. In the body of revision petition he claimed that he was allotted land on 3rd October, 1950 and possession was handed over to him. He had given the land for cultivation purpose. Father of respondents therein, Ghulam Haider Gagroo, with the connivance of the officials of the department got allotment of land in 1955 in his name. He has attained knowledge recently, therefore, the revision petition is within time. In ground (ii) of para.3 of the revision petition, he specifically stated that he is first allottee and the land has been allotted in favour of respondents without cancelling his allotment.
What transpires from this revision petition is that it has been consistent stand of Kaloo that he is first allottee of the land. The land has been subsequently allotted to Ghulam Haider Gagroo without cancelling the first allotment. The land was' got allotted illegally with the connivance of officials of the department. He was not in knowledge of allotment. The Rehabilitation Commissioner recorded finding that there is no record of allotment in favour of father of appellant. There is also no record wherefrom it could be ascertained that the allotment from the name of Kaloo was cancelled or he was issued any notice for cancellation of allotment.
8. Thee Custodian Evacuee Property while hearing the revision petition against the order of Rehabilitation Commissioner also examined the whole record and reached the conclusion that the allotment of Kaloo is proved from the record which is of the year 1950. There is no proof on the record that Kaloo was heard before the cancellation of his allotment nor the allotment has been cancelled from his name by any competent authority. The learned Custodian further observed that there is difference between the survey numbers cancelled and the survey numbers allotted in the name of Ghulam Haider Gagroo. He agreed with the conclusion drawn by the Rehabilitation Commissioner that without cancelling the allotment from the name of Kaloo the land has been allotted in favour of Ghulam Haider Gagroo. He observed that in presence of first allotment, subsequent allotment cannot be made. It has time and again been observed by this Court that without cancelling the first allotment, subsequent allotment is a nullity in the eye of law. While deciding similar point, this Court observed in a case titled Saif Ali v. Custodian of Evacuee Property and others (1993 SCR. 40) as under:-- ... Evidently in presence of the prior allotment of the respondents, the subsequent allotment in favour of the appellant would be deemed to be nullity in the eye of law."
' In the case titled Zafar lqbal v. Abdul Aziz and another 1998 CLC 286 it was observed as under:- ' These entries positively show that the allotment in the first instance was made in favour of Mst.
Resham Bibi and in view of existence of allotment in her name, the A.R.C. Had no lawful authority to make the allotment of these two numbers in favour of appellant, which in fact were not available for allotment. Moreover had the allotment not been existing in the name of Mst. Resham Bibi, the mother of respondent No.1, there seems to be no point for making the entries in Khasra-girdawari that the allotment from her name has been cancelled."
' Similarly in another case titled Government Boys High School and others v. Shah Muhammad and another (2002 SCR 329) it was observed as under:-- ".... The land in dispute was allotted in favour of the contesting respondent in the year 1949, whereas the allotment order was passed in favour of the High School Bhimber in the year 1969, without cancelling the previous order of allotment issued in favour of the contesting respondent, therefore, the subsequent order of allotment in favour of School was bad in law and was, therefore, rightly cancelled by the Custodian and his order was rightly maintained by the learned Judge in the High Court."
' Thus it can safely be concluded that the allotment in the name of Ghulam Haider Gagroo was a subsequent allotment, which was made secretly without cancelling the first allotment in the name of Kaloo, father of respondents.
9. The Rehabilitation Commissioner and the Custodian Evacuee Property recorded finding that Kaloo was not in the knowledge of allotment in favour of Ghulam Haider Gagroo. This finding is based on the assertion in the revision petition and further supported from the statement of.
Muhammad Sharif, which was recorded before the Judge, Multiple Allotment Judge. Muhammad Sharif stated that he went to obtain a copy from the office of Tehsil Bhimber, where he attained knowledge that the land has been cancelled from the name of his father. He immediately filed the revision petition. The revision petition before the Rehabilitation Commissioner was filed on 15th January, 1983. It is further clear from the memo. Of revision petition that he has filed an application for obtaining the copy of allotment made in favour of the father of respondents therein, Which is not available and on availability, he will file it with the record. A further inference can be drawn from the copy of allotment Register No.540, annexed by the appellants in this Court as annexure "B", where Kaloo son of Ganja is shown as allottee and in Column No.9, it is entered that on the orders of Revenue Assistant, the land bearing Survey Nos.782, 781/387, 780, has been cancelled from the name of Kaloo son of Ganja and allotted in the name of Ghulam Haider Gagroo, Sub-Judge, Bhimber. Kaloo was not allotted all the survey numbers shown in the aforesaid entry of allotment Register No.540. The assertion of respondents that the allotment in the name of father of appellants was made secretly appears true from this entry because such survey numbers are shown to have been cancelled from the name of. Kaloo which were not allotted to him. The Revenue Assistant had no jurisdiction to cancel the allotment from the name of any allottee. The version appears correct that the allotment was made in favour of Ghulam Haider Gagroo, secretly against the law and without cancelling the first allotment. Thus it is proved from the record that the father of respondents was not in knowledge of subsequent allotment.
10. The revision petition was within limitation from the date of knowledge as has been observed by this Court in the case titled Kh. Ghulam Qadir and another v. The Custodian of Evacuee Property and 13 others (2002 SCR 183). The relevant observation is as under:-- ' As may be seen an application for review could be filed before him within prescribed period which is thirty days. On the face of it the review petition was barred as it had been filed after 7 years. It was for the person who filed the review petition to explain the delay. Lack of knowledge could be pleaded and in that case petition could be filed within thirty days from the date of knowledge."
(Underlining is ours)
11. We have considered the argument of Mr. Muhammad Idrees Mughal, advocate, that appellant No.3 is one of the legal heirs of Ghulam Haider Gagroo. She was not arrayed as party before the Rehabilitation Commissioner. The point was dealt with by the Custodian and the High Court in detail. The learned Chief Justice in the High Court rightly observed that she was not even party in the writ petition filed by the appellants herein in the High Court, how the respondents could be in knowledge that she is one of the legal heirs of Ghulam Haider Gagroo. The contention is repelled.
12. We have also considered the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the allotment in the name of father of respondents was made in the year 1950 and under the Rehabilitation laws of the time, there was no concept of allotment rather the allotments were treated as lease. The proposition came under consideration of this Court in a case titled Muhammad Jameel v. Muhammad Siddique and another 1999 YLR 1089. While dealing with the similar situation when the allotment was made in the name of first allottee in 1950 an objection was raised that there were no allotments in 1950. There were only leases. While relying upon section 18(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957, the Court resolved that even leases of the property made under the laws of the time are protected under the said section as allotments. It was observed in para 11 as under:-- "11. Subsection (ii) reproduced above clearly lays down that leases sanctioned at the relevant time were called allotments but were in fact leases. In other words, as held in the aforesaid judgment, those were "allotments by way of leases". However, as already clarified, in Muhammad Shafi's case we were dealing with an allotment/lease which was specifically for a limited time. It is in these circumstances that it was laid down that it had ceased to be operative and could not be given effect to. This is the dictum in Muhammad Shafi's case. However, as has been pointed out, our attention was not drawn to subsection (2) of section 18, reproduced above and due to this omission we proceeded to observe that the allotments made by way of leases were not allotments and were no longer valid. These observations were made by way of obiter dicta. Now we have given our anxious thought to the provisions of section 18(2) and are of the view that validity granted in this provision of law would extend to allotments made by way of lease if they were existing when the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957 came into existence, as is the present case. The main reason which leads us to this conclusion is that validation has been given to "every allotment of evacuee property made between " and intention of the lawmaker clearly was to include every allotment made before coming into force of the said Act and that would also include an allotment by way of lease."
12. Thus it can safely be concluded that the allotment made in favour of father of respondents in 1950 was a valid allotment and he was first allottee of. Land. Subsequent allotment without cancelling the first allotment was a nullity in the eye of law.
13. The result of above discussion is that finding no force in this appeal it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.