Ghulam Mustafa Mughal, J.--The captioned petition for leave to appeal arises out of the judgment dated 26.3.2019 passed by the Azad Jammu and Kashmir in W rit Petition No. 2334 of 2015.
2. The precise facts forming the background of the captioned petition for leave to appeal are that Respondents No. 4 to 11, herein, filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner District Bagh for allotment of Shamilat-Deh land situated in village Dhair-Sikandrabad Tehsil and District Bagh. It was stated that Respondent No. 3 on the said application contrary to the rules allotted 3 kanal land from Survey No. 4/2 in favour of respondents vide order dated 12.8.2013, against which the petitioners, herein, filed an appeal before Commissioner Poonch Division, which was dismissed vide order dated 10.3.2015. The petitioners, feeling aggrieved from the order dated 10.3.2015 field an appeal before Member Board of Revenue, which also met the same fate and was dismissed vide order dated 3.11.2015. The order dated 3.11.2015 was further assailed by the petitioners, herein, before the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court on 16.11.2015 through a writ petition. The learned High Court after necessary proceedings vide impugned order dated 26.3.2019 has dismissed the writ petition due to non joinder of necessary party.
3. Raja Ibrar Hussain, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has argued that the land in question is a crown land and the same has been converted into Shamilat-e-Deh land vide mutation dated 6.8.1996. He further argued that Survey No. 4/2 measuring 7 kanal 1 marla, in fact, is. Charand Ghair Mumkin and has been recorded as such throughout in the revenue record. He submitted that this land is reserved for grazing cattle/charand Ghair Mumkin etc. and is commonly used by the locals. He further argued that the Collector District Bagh was not competent to allot this land as per settled law, hence, the order passed by him on 13.8.2013 is contrary to the standing order No. 26/2006 as well as the statutory provisions of Shamilat-e-Deh Act, 1966. The learned Advocate further argued that the order was challenged before the Commissioner by way of appeal but the same was dismissed vide order dated 10.3.2015. He further argued that the order dated 10.3.2015 was further assailed before the Board of Revenue by filing appeal, which was also dismissed. The learned Advocate argued that the order passed by Board of Revenue was challenged through writ petition before the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court, which has been dismissed through the impugned order dated 26.3.2019 arbitrarily and erroneously. He argued that the orders passed by the Board of Revenue, Commissioner and Collector District Bagh are perverse, arbitrary, violative of relevant rules, hence, were liable to be struck down by the learned High Court but the learned High Court has dismissed the writ petition on technical ground. The learned Advocate argued that it was enjoined upon the learned High Court to exercise the powers vested in him under Order Rule 10, C.P.C. and dismissal of the writ petition on mis-joinder of the party is nullity in the eye of law. He further argued that the order passed by the Collector District Bagh was ab-mitio void, therefore, it was imperative for the Commissioner as well as the Board of Revenue to exercise suo-moto jurisdiction for recalling these ab-initio void orders. The learned Advocate has placed reliance on the causes reported as Zahid Mehmood Shah and 24 others vs. Azad Govt. and 14 others (2011 SCR 159) and Khaliq Nawaz and 3 others vs. AJ&K Govt. and 2 others (2017 SCR 1504). The learned Advocate further argued that an application has been moved for impleading the board of revenue in line of respondents, therefore, the same is liable to be allowed in exercise of powers conferred on this Court under Supreme Court Rules read with Order I Rule 10, C.P.C.
4. Conversely, Ch. Shoukat Aziz, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents has argued that the application for amendment has been made before this Court after a period of four years, which is hopelessly time barred and due to lapse committed by the petitioners, herein, the accrued rights to the respondents cannot be taken back. The learned Advocate further argued that the learned High Court has not committed any illegality while dismissing the writ petition because the public functionary whose order is challenged is a necessary party, which was missing in the case. The learned Advocate further argued that the law helps vigilant not indolent and a person who is careless and indolent in prosecuting his case cannot be allowed to reap the fruits of his negligence.
5. We have heard the learned Advocates representing the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The learned High Court has dismissed the writ petition mainly on the ground that the board of revenue has not been impleaded in line of Respondents. For coming to the conclusion the learned High Court has relied upon sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Board of Revenue Act, 1983. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 postulates that any order made or a decree passed, by a member shall be deemed to be the order or decree of the Board. In this perspective of the matter, it was enjoined upon the petitioners, herein, to implead the Board of Revenue as a party in the writ petition instead the member board of revenue alone. The learned Advocate for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment reported as Zahid Mehmood Shah and 24 others vs. Azad Govt. and 14 others (2011 SCR 159), the perusal of the same reveals that the judgment runs counter to the stand taken by the petitioners. No doubt, the Court while exercising writ jurisdiction or even this Court in appeal has vast powers to implead the necessary party for doing complete justice but in this case, the petitioners have been very negligent in prosecuting their case and they are not entitled to discretionary relief after a period of four years. The other case relied upon by the learned Advocate for the petitioner has distinguishable fact and hardly applicable in the case in hand. The rights accrued to the other party, due to lapse committed by the petitioners cannot be taken back, hence, the application for amendment is dismissed. After dismissing the application for grant of amendment, we are of the considered view that the judgment passed by the learned High Court is perfectly legal and does not suffer from any legal infirmity. No any legal question of law of public importance is involved in this petition for leave to appeal, hence, the same is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.