' The facts leading up to this Constitutional Petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was in occupation of a portion of 20 sq. Yds. With construction thereon of an evacuee property comprising of amalgamated Plots Nos. G. R. E. 464, 465 and 466 now known as G. R. E. 464, situated on main road, near Lasbela roundabout at Karachi. It was transferred to him vide an entitlement order dated 8-5-1974. A permanent transfer deed dated 15-6-1974 was issued in his favour and the property was mutated in his name and he paid the taxes. It is alleged that thereafter in the middle of 1978, the petitioner developed eye trouble and left for his home town in District Hazara for the purpose of treatment with the assistance of his relatives. At the time he left Karachi he put his cousin Miskeen Shah son of Sher Shah in charge of the property. On his return in the month of February, 1981, he was informed that the said property was being claimed by respondent No, 5 as he had purchased it from respondent No, 4 Iqbal who was said to be the transferee of the property in dispute. His further inquiries revealed that respondent No, 4 had filed a Civil Suit No, 2490/78 for recovery of possession against him, on the basis of his claim of transfer of the property to him in the year 1963. The suit was decreed against him and on filing execution application the respondent No, 4 was put into possession of the property in dispute. The petitioner thereafter filed a Civil Suit No, 503/81 for restoration of possession to him which is ultimately said to have been withdrawn by him. On further inquiries the petitioner came to know that the transfer order made in his favour of the property in dispute was cancelled by the order of respondents 1 and 3 vide their orders dated 26-4-1975 and 29-9-1977 respectively. He also came to know that respondent No, 5 was claiming the property in dispute by virtue of sale deed dated 17-6-1980 executed in his favour by respondent No, 4 as its owner. The petitioner, therefore, filed this petition challenging the impugned orders above-mentioned passed by respondents 1 and 3 as being illegal and without lawful authority as they were passed without notice to the petitioner, and were in violation of principles of natural justice.
2. The respondents 1 to 3 are official respondents. The case of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 is to the effect that the property in dispute was already transferred to respondent No, 4 in the year 1963 and P. T. D. Was issued in his favour on 10-6-1963 and that the site plan for the same was also approved by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 7-8-1963 and 30-3-1974 for 57-77 sq. Yds. Showing the disputed area verified in his site plan and that the mutation was also effected in the record of the City Deputy Collector and, therefore, the property was no more available for transfer to the petitioner in the year 1974 and that if at all he obtained its transfer fraudulently and illegally, it was not at all lawful and effective. It is further the case of the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 that the property was sold by respondent No, 4 to respondent No, 5 and, therefore, the respondent No, 5 is bona fide purchaser for value of the property in dispute from respondent No,
4. It is also the case of respondent No, 4 that the impugned orders passed by respondents 1 and 3 in revision filed by the respondent No, 4 were not without notice to the petitioner, as notice was served on his cousin Miskeen Shah who was put in charge of the property by the petitioner during his long absence out of Karachi. It is further contended that the petition seriously suffers from laches as it has been filed after nearly six years after the impugned order passed by respondent No, 1 on 26-4-1975 and after a period of about 3 years 9 months from the impugned order dated 29-9-1977 passed by respondent No, 3.
3. I have heard Mr. Abdul Naseer Khan the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abdul Majeed Khan, for respondents Nos. 4 and 5. The contention raised by Mr. Abdul Naseer Khan on behalf of the petitioner mainly is that the impugned orders were passed without notice to the petitioner and were therefore ex parte and are clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice. On the other hand, Mr. Abdul Majeed Khan, the learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 has mainly raised three-fold contention; firstly, that the property in dispute was already transferred to the respondent No, 4 long back before the transfer in favour of the petitioner was obtained illegally or fraudulently; secondly, that the impugned orders were not passed without notice to the petitioner; and, thirdly, that the petitioner had an adequate alternate remedy available before the Settlement Authorities and that the petition also seriously suffers from laches.
4. Coming to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order dated 29-9-1977 passed by Deputy Settlement Commissioner, the respondent No, 3, would clearly show that notice of the revision was served on Miskeen Shah who appeared and stated that he looked after the business of the petitioner, who had gone out of Karachi to Hazara and he did not know as to when he will come back. The order further shows that his statement to that effect was also recorded. Para. 6 of the petition itself would clearly show that the petitioner at the time of leaving for Hazara had put Miskeen Shah his cousin in charge of the disputed property. It is also admitted in the evidence on the record that Miskeen Shah was carrying on business of selling grass on the property in dispute. It would, therefore, appear very clear that the notice of the revision application filed before the respondent No, 1, remanded for hearing to respondent No, 3 was served on the representative of the petitioner and that it was his duty to inform the petitioner in time to look after the revision petition or had himself to look after it, but he chose to remain disinterested in the matter for a number of years till the petitioner came back at his own convenience and he informed him about the impugned orders. I would, therefore, find no force in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned orders were passed against the petitioner without notice and there appears no force in the contention to the effect that the principles of natural justice were violated.
5. Coming to the first contention raised on behalf of the respondents Nos. 4 and 5, it is an admitted position that the property in dispute was transferred to respondent No, 4 in the year 1963 and that the petitioner after coming into its unauthorised possession obtained its transfer order in the year 1974 when the property was not at all available for transfer in his favour. In the situation, therefore, the respondents 1 and 3 on receiving revision application rightly cancelled the transfer order passed in favour of the petitioner.
6. So far as the second contention raised on behalf of the respondents 4 and 5 is concerned, I have already answered while discussing the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned orders were not passed without notice to the petitioner as his representative Miskeen Shah had been admittedly served with the notice and it was his duty to follow the proceedings or inform the petitioner immediately to look after the proceedings, but Miskeen Shah chose to remain silent. I would, therefore, find that notice on the petitioner was duly served and the impugned orders were not passed without notice to him.
7. As regards the third contention, in case the petitioner if at all felt himself aggrieved by the impugned orders having been passed ex parte at his back, he had very clearly an adequate alternate remedy available to him to file application before the Settlement Authorities for recalling such an order rather than to come in this petition. The petitioner has failed to follow that course and the contention in that respect raised on behalf of the respondents is not without force. So far laches are concerned, the, petitioner has failed to explain satisfactorily his absence from Karachi right from 1978 till the petition was filed on 7-6-1981. It does not appeal to reason that Miskeen Shah his cousin who was admittedly put in charge of the property in dispute and was actually carrying on business at his instance in the disputed property would either fail to look after the proceedings in revision before the Settlement Authorities or would fail to inform the petitioner about it. On the face of it, it appears that the petitioner deliberately remained away from looking after the proceedings clearly on account of his negligence. This petition was filed on 8-6-1981 after a period of nearly 6 years after the impugned order dated 26-4-1975 passed by respondent No, 1 and after a period of about 3 years 9 months after the impugned order dated 29-9-1977 was passed by respondent No,
3. With the background above-mentioned and in view of the delay in filing the petition, there appears c no doubt to me that the petition very seriously suffers from laches as well.
The contentions raised on behalf of the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 therefore, are not without substance. None of the rest of contentions raised on behalf of the parties, in the circumstances, need any consideration.
8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs.