Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, J.--Through this writ petition, the petition ers have challenged the vires of order dated 22.04.2006 passed by the Senior Member/Member (Revenue), Chief Land Commissioner , Punjab whereby ROR
(LR) No. 36/2002 filed by the petitioner was dismissed being barred by limitation and order dated 12.12.201 1 passed by the Federal Land Commission, Islamabad (Camp at Lahore) who dismissed the revision petition of the petitioners.
2. Brief facts of the case as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that one Sh. Ahmad Abdullah a refugee from non-agreed area of India got the land measuring 5110 Kanals 17- Marlas allotted but he had surrendered the said allotted land under MLR-89 and opted to purchase the same under MLR-91. An agreement to sell was written with the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and Respondents No. 3 to 11 and the petitioners paid all the consideration amount and got possession of the land comprising Khata No. 17, Khatooni No. 228/285, 239, 230,231, 232 and in Khata No. 11 Khatooni No. 91 to 96 in village Duloo Gurukey, Tehsil Chunian District Kasur. Sh. Ahmad Abdullah merely filed a claim under MLR 115 and full ownership rights were not yet conferred upon him but he without permission of the collector entered into, an agreement to sell with the petitioners and Respondents No. 3 to 11 and transferred the land to them but subsequently Deputy Land Commissioner had accepted the declaration of the said Sh. Ahmad Abdullah under Para 12(1) (a) and 12 (1) (b) of MLR-115 vide order dated 26.01.1974. The petitioners and Respondents No. 3 to 11 filed an appeal before the Land Commissioner, Punjab on 02.04.1974 against impugned order passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner which was accepted vide order dated 30.06.1974 and the case was remanded to the Collector for considering the retrospective regularization of the transaction of sale under Para 10 of MLR-91 and declaration filed by Sh.
Ahmad Abdullah was declared infructuous. The petitioners and predecessor-in-interest of Respondents No. 3 to 11 being tenants were entitled to get the property transferred in their names by the Collector. Predecessor-in - interest of the Respondents No. 3 to 11 Malik Faqir Ali and Hotey Khan by practicing fraud and misrepresentation got the sale deed executed from the Collector Kasur on 16.07.1978 registered on 09.08.1978 in their names excluding the names of the petitioners whereas predecessor-in-interest-of the petitioners namely Allah Ditta, Sardar Muhammad and Fazal Karim were also a party before the Deputy Land Commissioner and Land Commissioner, Punjab. Being legal heirs of Allah Ditta, Sardar Muhammad and Fazal Karim petitioners are eligible for the purchase of the land, in this way, petitioners were deprived from their rights, as such, fraud was committed with them. The petitioners filed petition before the Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab Lahore under Para 4(6) of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulations, 1959 which was dismissed summarily on the sole ground of limitation vide order dated 22.04.2006. Against the above order the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 11722/2006 which was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn on 26.02.2008. The petitioners filed revision petition which was also dismissed by the Federal Land Commissioner, Islamabad vide order dated 12.12.2011.
Hence, this writ petition on the grounds that both orders are illegal passed in hasty manner and not sustainable in the eyes of law.
3. Learned law officer appearing on behalf of Respondents No. 1 & 2 contends that petitioners' predecessor admittedly were party at the time of decision dated 30.06.1974 rendered by the Land Commissioner , Punjab and they were well aware about the litigation, as such, petition was rightly dismissed being barred by limitation under Section 4(6) of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, and no illegality has been committed, as such the instant petition deserves dismissal.
4. We have heard the arguments of learn ed counsels for the parties and gone through the record with their able assistance.
5. Admittedly , predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners namely Allah Ditta, Sardar Muhammad and Fazal Karim were party in the appeal before the Land Commissioner Lahore Division which was decided on 30.06.1974 and the Petitioners were well aware about the litigation and this fact was also admitted in the writ petition as well. After lapse of more than 27 years the petitioners filed petition under Para-4(6) of the Land Reforms Regulations, 1959 (Martial law Regulation 64), read with the Scheme for disposal of Surrendered Land under Martial Law Regulation No. 89/91 of 1961 seeking modification of the sale-deed registered on 09.08.1978 executed by the then Collector Kasur , whereas the matter falls under the ambit of past and closed transactions which cannot conveniently be reopened by the lower adjudicating fora. Reliance is placed on Pakistan International Airlines Corporation vs. Aziz ur Rehman Chaudhary and another (2016 SCMR 14). It is settled law that party has to be vigilant with regard to its rights and any impairment or infringement whereof must be agitated within the provided timeframe as the law always helps the vigilant and hardly shows any favour to the indolent. As the Revenue Revision Petition of the petitioners was ostensibly time barred and by running of a considerable period of limitation certain tangible legal rights stood accrued in favour of the adverse party which are duly protected by the law and same cannot be frustrated by exercising uncalled for discretionary power until and unless convincing reasons have been explained for the said delay . Reliance can also be placed on the case titled as Messrs Blue Star Spinning Mills Ltd. vs. Collector of Sales Tax & others (2013 SCMR 587). Further under Section 3 of the Act ibid it is mandatory duty of the Court firstly to see whether the suit/petition is filed within the prescribed limita tion or not. The law of limitation provides an element of certainty in the conduct of human affairs as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case titled as Atta Muhammad vs. Maula Bakhsh & others (2007 SCMR 1446 ). For ready reference, relevant paragraph is reproduced as under: "9. We may add that public interest requires that there should be an end to litigation. The law of limitation provides an element of certainty in the conduct of human- affair. Statutes of limitation and prescription are, thus, statutes of peace and repose. In order to avoid the difficulty and errors that necessarily result from lapse of time, the presumption of coincidence of fact and right is rightly , accepted as final after a certain number of years. Whoever wishes to dispute this presumption must do so, within that period; otherwise his rights if any, will be forfeited as a penalty for his neglect. In other words the law of limitation is a law which is designed to impose quietus on legal dissensions and conflicts it requires that persons must come to Court and take recourse to legal remedies with due diligence".
In another case titled as Ahmad Din vs. Muhammad Shafi & others (PLD 1971 SC 762), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held as under: "The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the suit could not fail merely by reason of the fact that the consequential relief by way of possession had not been claimed is not altogeth er without substance. If this suit was otherwise maintainable and he was otherwise entitled to the relief it was open to the Courts to allow him to amend the plaint by adding a prayer for possession and paying the appropriate ad valorem Court-fees and then to grant him relief even though he had not specifically asked for it. But in the circumstances of this case since we have come to the conclusion that the civil Courts had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the suit was also barred by limitation, it is unnecessary to go into this question. This appeal must fail on that account and is accordingly , dismissed but there will be no order as to costs."
(emphasis supplied)
Admittedly; under Rule 11(2) of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1972, the limitation for filing the appeal against the Land Commissioner order before the. Senior Member/Chief Land Commission , Punjab is 20, days and under Rule 12 of the Rules ibid the limitation of review is also 20 days. The petitioners filed this petition after lapse of more than 27 years against order dated 30.06.1974, as such, Chief Land Commissioner as well as Federal Land Commission rightly passed orders and no illegality has been committed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any illegal ity or material irregularity in the impugned orders passed by the Land Commission/revenue authorities and has also not identified any jurisdictional defect calling for interference by this Court.
7. The revenue hierarchy had given concurrent findings of facts against the petitioners and the conclusions made by the revenue hierarchy are based on cogent reasons, as such, same do not call for any interference by this Court. Reliance is placed on the cases titled as Muhammad Husain Munir & others vs. Sikandar & others (PLD 1974 SC 139), Muhammad Sher & another vs. Mian Kamal Shah & 11 Others (1987 CLC 47) Muhammad Akram vs. Member Board of Revenue, etc. (PLJ 2014 Lahore 484) & Muhammad Akram vs. Member , Board of Revenue (Judicial-WI) & 8 others (2014 MLD 870).
8. As discussed above, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.