CH. MUHAMMAD IQBAL, J.---Through this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the vires of order dated 24.06.2004 passed by the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, who dismissed ROR No.3045/1982 filed by the petitioners and order dated 01.12.201 1 passed by the Member (Judicial-VI), Boar d of Revenue, Punjab whereby Review No.255 of 2005 in ROR No.3045/ 1982 filed by the petitioners was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case, as contained in this writ petition, are that consolidation scheme of revenue estate Bhabhrana, Tehsil Laalian, District Chiniot, was confirmed by the Consolidation Officer under section 10(3) of the Consolidation of Holding Ordinance, 1960 on 31.03.197, with the consent of parties. Against said order , respondents Shera etc., filed appeal before the Collector (Consolidation) which was accepted vide order dated 28.08.1977 and case was remanded to the Consolidation Officer who submitted his proposal before Collector for the amendment in the scheme which was all owed vide order dated 12.07.1981. Against the said order , respondents again filed appeals before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) which were accepted vide order dated 22.11.1981 and the case was remanded back to the Collector (Consolidation) who again recommended for amendments in the scheme vide order dated 19.06.1982. Three appeals were filed before the Additional Commissioner Consolidation which were accepted vide order dated 23.09.1982 and this time again the case was remanded to the Consolidation Officer to amend the scheme. Against the said order , the Revision Petition ROR No.3045/1982 titled as Sulli etc. v. Shera etc., filed by the petitioners and ROR No.757/84 titled as Shera etc. v. Sulli etc., filed by the respondents were dismissed by the Member Board of Revenue vide order dated 24.06.2004 being time barred. The petitioners tiled Writ Petition No.17416 of 2004 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 05.05.2005 with the observation that the petitioners may file the review petition before the Board of Revenue. The petitioners filed Review (No.255/2005 in ROR No.3045 of 1982) was also dismissed by the Member (Judicial-VI), Board of Revenue, Punjab vide order dated 01.12.201 1. Hence, this writ petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at full length and gone through the entire record with their able assistance.
4. The petitioners' revision petition (ROR No.3045/1982) was dismissed by the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, vide order dated 24.06.2004. The petitioners challenged the same through a writ petition which was disposed of vide order dated 05.05.2005 with the observation that the petitioners can avail remedy of review before the Board of Revenue. The petitioners then filed Review Petition (No.255/2005) which was dismissed by the Member , Board of Revenue on 01.12.201 1. The impugned order was passed by the Board of Revenue on 01.12.201 1 whereas the petitioners filed the instant writ petition on 16.01.2013 after lapse of about 01 year and 02 months. When this fact confronted, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on 01.12.201 1, the Full Board, Board of Revenue reserved the judgment in the review petition filed by the petitioners. The petitioners filed application on 18.07.2012 for obtaining certified copy of order dated 01.12.201 1 which was supplied to them on 02.11.2012 and thereafter the petitioners filed instant writ petition.
Perusal of the impugned order dated 01.12.201 1 shows that the decision was announced on 01.12.201 1 without keeping it reserve whereas the petitioners themselves remained indolent and filed application for obtaining certified copy of above order on 18.07.2012 i.e. after lapse of about 07 months, which copy was delivered to them on 02.11.2012. Even after receiving the certified copy on 02.11.2012, the petitioners remained silent and filed instant writ petition on 16.01.2013 i.e. again after lapse of about 02-months and 14-days.
As discussed above, instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners after lapse of about 01 year and 02 months without explaining any convincing and reasonable cause of this inordin ate delay , as such, principle of laches is fully applicable upon this case. Reliance is placed on the case titled as Mubarik Ali and others v. The Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner , Lahore and others (1968 SCMR 1235 ) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held as under:- "A learned Single Judge of that Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that it was a belated one as the order under challenge was passed on the 12th May 1962, and the writ petition was filed on the 4th November 1963, and therefore there was no satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the writ petition. This order of the learned Single Judge was affirmed in the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the petitione rs. It has been found that it was not one of cases in which it could be said that the learned Single Judge had exercised discretion on erroneous or improper consideration because the petitioners had no reasonable explanation for inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. It has been contended by Muzaf far Ahmad Mian that delay per se is not a ground for refusing a relief. We are not impressed by this argument. The learned Judge had a discretion and as this has been exercised judicially there is no scope for interference by this Court."
Each and every legal remedy of the aggrieved person against an order is time specific and after expiry of said period the said remedy stands ineffective and does not rescue the said litigant whereas delayed challenging the impugned order , in itself is a sufficient ground for denying relief to the petitioner . In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case titled as Trustees of the Port of Karachi v. Organization of Karachi Port Trust W orkers and others (2013 SCMR 238 ) held as under:- "12. Undoubtedly , the provisions of Limitation Act,1908 cannot be stricto sensu made applicable to the claims set forth in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, but if the claim on the face of it is barred by law of limitation in relation to the suit, the relief should be refused to the writ petitioners on the rule of laches and past and closed transaction....."
5. From the perusal of record, it revea ls that matter in issue pertains to the consolidation proceedings which contain factual controversy and same cannot be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction and this Court ordinarily avoids to re-appraise such factual controv ersy in its writ jurisdiction as it cannot sit as an appellate court against the concurrent decisions of Consolidation Revenue Authorities. The orders made by the Consolidation authorities with regard to allocation of land are not fit matters which can be agitated in writ jurisdiction. It is settled law that the allocation and demarcation of land is left open for the domain of Consolidation Officer and this Court in exercise of Article 199 of the Constitution should not reappraise such factual controversies, but should concern itself only with legality of orders and not its propriety . Reliance is placed on the case titled as Ghulam Rasool and others v.
Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue and others (2004 SCMR 587 ) wherein it is held as under:- "7. The review of the case-law by both sides does indicate that the precise allocatio ns and demarcations have to be left with the Consolidation Officer and this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, should not reappraise such factual controversies. It should concern itself with the legality of the orders and not the propriety of the same. In any case, after hearing the two sides as well as the learned Assistant Advocate-General, I have not been persuaded to hold that the impugned directions of the learned M.B.R, in any manner are unjust or have caused miscarriage of justice."
In another case titled as Manzoor Hussain and others v. Member (Judicial-1 1), Board of Revenue and others (2006 SCMR 951), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that Consolidation of holdings and consequent distribution of W andas being a question of fact, could not be gone into by this Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. Such question would be examined and decided by the Consolidation Authorities under West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 held as under:- "Consolidation of holdings and consequent distribution of Wandas is essentially a question to be examined and decided by the Consolidation Authorities under Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. The matter was examined at various stages including the Board of Revenue which had occasioned to scrutinize the issue twice i.e. Firstly in its revisional jurisdiction and secondly , on a review filed by the present petitioners. The petitioners then approached the Honourable High Court invoking its Constitutional jurisdiction and their petition failed as it was found by the learned Judge in Chamber that the question being essentially one of the fact could not be gone into by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction. It was also mentioned by the learned Single Judge that the deficiency of land upto ten Marlas is permissible and in the petitioners' case the deficiency was only eight Marlas.
In another case titled as Muhammad Hayat and others v. Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue and others (2007 SCMR 1950 ), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that unless there was deficiency in the entitlement of a right holder , adjustment or allocation of land in consolidation has never been considered to be a fit subject matter for being examined and adjudicated upon in constitutional jurisdiction. Land owners cannot possibly get the entire previously owned land or land of their choice as certain adjustments are inevitable to give effect to the object of consolidation of holdings held as under:- "4....It may be noted that unless there is deficiency in the entitlement of a right holder, adjustment or allocation of land in consolidation has never been considered to be a fit subject- matter for being examined and adjudicated upon in constitutional jurisdiction. We will like to add that the landowners cannot possibly get the entire previously owned land or land of their choice as certain adjustments are in-evitable to give ef fect to the object of consolidation of holdings."
Reliance is placed on the cases titled as Ghulam Qadir v. Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, Lahore and 4 others (1970 SCMR 292) Allah Rehman and others v. Amtul Qayyum and another (1989 SCMR 1817 ), Asad Riaz v . Member , Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 4 others (1997 SCMR 161 1).
6. In view of above, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merits.