KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.--Through this petition petitioners Dost Ali, Sajjan and Mushtaque, the L.Rs of deceased Hakim son of Ghafoor Samejo, have called in question the orders dated 13.07.2010 and 30.11.2010, passed by the Member (R&S) Board of Revenue Sindh, Hyderabad, order dated 03.03.1998, passed by the Additional Commissioner Mirpurkhas Division, order dated 30.04.1995, passed by the Deputy Commissioner Tharparkar at Mithi and order dated 07.06.1993, passed by the Assistant Commissioner Chacharo.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the old Revenue record of Taluka Chhachro was destroyed during Indo-Pak War of 1971. The then Mukhtiarkar Chacharo as inquiry officer for reconstruction of the missing record afresh, held inquiry Katchery for the above purpose. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid inquiry conducted by the Mukhtiarkar/Inquiry officer Chhachro, respondent No,6 Aalam son of Bhadur Samejo filed Appeal No,24 of 1991 before the Assistant Commissioner Chhachro, who after hearing the parties passed order dated 07.6.1993, whereby Bigoti Nos,58 and 65 situated in Makan Aniopar were ordered to be shown on their original place i,e, on the Western side of Survey No,19 and resultantly, the land made available due to shifting of the above Bigoti numbers at their original place being Government land was treated and recorded as such in the record. One Hakim son of Ghafoor Samejo, the predecessor in interest of petitioners Dost Ali, Sajjan and Mushtaque being dissatisfied with the said order dated 07.06.1993, filed an appeal on 05.7.1994 before the Deputy Commissioner Tharparkar at Mithi, who after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal being time vide order dated 30.4.1995, which was called in question in Revision Application No,17 of 1995 by Hakim Samejo, before the Additional Commissioner Mirpurkhas Division, which was dismissed as withdrawn on the statement filed by petitioner Hakim vide order dated 03.3.1998, passed by Additional Commissioner Mirpurkhas Divison. After 11 years of the aforesaid dismissal of the Revision Application as withdrawn, the present petitioners Dost Ali and others filed second Revision application bearing case No,SROR-32 of 2009 before the Member (R&S) Board of Revenue Sindh, Hyderabad which was dismissed vide order dated 13.10.2010 and then they filed a Review application bearing Case No, S. Review-61 of 2010 before the Member (R&S) Board of Revenue Sindh, that was also dismissed vide order dated 30.11.2010, and, thereafter the petitioners have filed the instant petition.
3. It is, inter-alia, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Assistant Commissioner Chhachro, passed order dated 07.6.1993, whereby he had wrongly fixed the location of Bigoti Nos,58 and 65 on the Western side of survey No,19 and treated the subject land emerged due to shifting of the above Bigoti Nos,58 and 65 at the above place as the Government land; that the Deputy Commissioner Tharparkar at Mithi and then Additional Commissioner Mirpurkhas Division had dismissed the Appeal and Revision Application filed by Hakim Samejo, the predecessor in interest of the petitioners, vide orders dated 30.4.1995 and 03.03.1998 respectively and the then Member Board of Revenue also dismissed the Second Revision Application and Review Application filed by the petitioners vide order dated 13.7.2010 and 30.11.2010 respectively without considering the above aspect of the case. Learned counsel submits that all the aforesaid impugned orders dated 07.03.1993, 30.4.1995, 03.03.1998, 13.07.2010 and 30.11.2010 passed by the Revenue authorities are illegal, which may be set aside and the petition may be allowed. Learned counsel has relied upon the cases of Abdul Majeed Khan through L.Rs, and others v. Ms. Maheen Begum and others (2004 SCM R 1524), Abdur Rahman Bhatti and another v. Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and another (2006 CLC 543) and Haji Abdul Haq and others v.
Province of Punjab and others (2007 SCMR 1524).
4. Learned A.A.G has mainly contended that all the orders passed by the competent authorities in hierarchy of Revenue Department one after other are according to law; that the petitioner has no right or title over the subject land which is the Government land; that the petitioners by filing frivolous and incompetent second Revision Application and Review petition before the Member Board of Revenue Sindh, Hyderabad and then this petition, want to encroach upon the Government land; and, that there is no illegality in the impugned orders, passed by the Revenue Authorities. He, therefore, prays that the petition may be dismissed.
5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.A.G and have gone through the material placed on record with their assistance.
6. From a perusal of the record it would be seen that Hakim son of Ghafoor Samejo, the predecessor in interest of petitioners Dost Ali and others had challenged order dated 07.06.1993, passed by the then Assistant Commissioner Chhachro in appeal filed on 05.7.1994 i,e, after more than 12 months without any explanation for such an inordinate delay in filing the appeal and that too without application under section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay in, filing the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner Tharparkar, who after hearing the parties had dismissed the said appeal as hopelessly time barred as is evident from the copy of order dated 30.4.1995 filed as Annexure-F available at page 47-50 with the petition; copy of the order filed as Annexure-H available at page 53, passed by the Additional Commissioner Mirpurkhas in the Revision Application No,17 of 1995, filed by Hakim Ali, reveals that petitioner Hakim Samejo, the predecessor in interest of the petitioners by filing his statement had withdrawn the aforesaid revision application, and consequently the Revision Petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 03.03.1998, which reads as under:- "This is a revision petition filed against the order dated 30.4.1995 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Tharparkar at Mithi whereby dismissing the appeal preferred by the above named petitioner on the ground of limitation in respect of Yaksala land situated in makan Anio-Par Taluka Chachro, District Tharparkar.
2. Notices were issued to the parties. Both parties with their counsels were present. Before going into the merits of the case, the petitioner filed statement stated therein that he being petitioner in the above matter do hereby withdraw from the aforesaid appeal without any pressure and influence as the differences have been ended due to intervention of nek-mards of the locality.
3. In view of the statement of petitioner, the withdrawal is allowed. The revision application is dismissed as withdrawn."
7. Subsequently, in the year 2009 i,e, after 11 years of the aforesaid dismissal of the revision application as withdrawn, petitioners Dost Ali, Sajjan and Mushtaque claiming themselves to be the legal hens of deceased Hakim, filed Second Revision Application being case No,SROR-32 of 2009 re: Hakim Samejo (since deceased) through Dost Ali and 2 others v. Alam, before Member (R&S)
Board of Revenue Sindh Hyderabad, which was dismissed vide order dated 13.07.2010, as is reflected from the copy of the said order annexed as Annexure-L available at page-81, but the matter did not end there, for, the petitioners Dost Ali and others then filed a Review Application before the Member (R&S) Board of Revenue Sindh being Case No,S. Review:-61 of 2010 re: Hakim Samejo (since deceased) through legal heirs Dost Ali and 2 others v. Alam which was dismissed by Member (R&S) Board of Revenue Sindh vide order dated 30.11.2010 as is revealed from the copy of the said order filed as Annexure-P available at page-105. Manifestly, Hakim Samejo, the predecessor of interest of present petitioners Dost Ali, Sajjan and Mushtaque had himself in his life time ended the subject dispute by withdrawing his Revision Application before the Additional Commissioner Mirpurkhas Division, which was dismissed as such vide order dated 03.03.1998, and, thus in our humble view the petitioners by filing incompetent second Revision Application after 11 years of dismissal of the Revision Application as withdrawn by their predecessor in interest, and then Review Application before the Member Board of Revenue Sindh, made vain, attempt to revive the aforesaid dead matter. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also not been able to point out any illegality in the impugned orders passed by the Member Board of Revenue Sindh, dismissing the petitioners' second Revision filed after 11 years of dismissal of the Revision Application by the Additional Commissioner Mirpurkhas Division as withdrawn on the statement of their predecessor in interest Hakim and dismissal of their Review Application seeking review of the aforesaid order.
8. The cases (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners being distinguished on facts and circumstances are not attracted to the case one in hand, for, in none of the cited cases the question of filing Second Revision Application by the legal heirs after 11 years of withdrawal of the 1st Revision Application by their predecessor in interest before the earlier forum was involved; moreover, in case of Abdul Majeed Khan (supra), the question of mutation based on gift made by deceased land lady was involved, in case: of Haji Abdul Hak (supra) and Abdul Rehman Bhatti (supra), the question exchange of proprietary rights in the land with the State land was involved and, thus none of the cases cited by the learned counsel for petitioners is helpful for them.
9. In view of what has been stated above, we are of the humble view that this petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.