Kh. Muhammad Nasim, J. The captioned appeal by leave of the Court has been directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 21.09.2022, passed in Writ Petition No. 474/2022.
2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellant, herein, filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming therein that plot No. 22-E/3, measuring 60 x 70, situate in Sub-Sector F/3, Part- II, Mirpur was originally allotted to proforma respondent, herein, which was purchased by the appellant. It was stated that the appellant filed a suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mirpur, on 01.02.2006, which was decreed in his favour vide judgment and decree dated 19.03.2007. It was further averred that the aforesaid plot was acquired by Respondent No. 2, herein through award dated 12.08.2006 for approach of road to New City Mirpur but for the said purpose 30 x 60 out of 60x70 was utilized for construction of road and the remaining plot measuring 60 x 38 has not been utilized for which the same was acquired. It was further stated that the appellant applied for de- award of the unutilized plot to Respondent No. 1 from where it was finally suggested to initiate the matter with Respondent No. 6, for its approval, however, despite making efforts at his level best, the needful was not done, hence, he is constrained to file the writ petition. It was prayed that while accepting the writ petition, the respondents concerned may be directed to de-award the unutilized plot measuring 60x38, in the interest of justice. The learned High Court after hearing the preliminary arguments, dismissed the writ petition in limine, through the impugned judgment dated 21.09.2022, which is the subject matter of instant appeal by leave of the Court.
3. Mr. Muhammad Siddique Chaudhary, the learned Advocate representing the appellant argued the case at some length and submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned High Court is patently illegal. He further submitted that important legal proposition was involved in the writ petition that if the acquired land is not utilized for the public purpose it shall be reverted back/de-awarded to its original owner, which demands resolution after admission of the writ petition for regular hearing, instead, the learned High Court without considering the contents of the writ petition and resolving the real controversy involved in the writ petition, dismissed the same in limine in a hasty manner, which resulted into miscarriage of justice. He lastly prayed for acceptance of appeal.
4. Conversely, M/s Javaid Najam-us-Saqib, Farooq Akbar Kiani and Mrs. Nabeela Ayoub, the learned Advocates while appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the impugned judgment is perfectly legal calling for no interference by this Court. The plot in question was acquired vide award dated 12.08.2006, for approach of road to New City Mirpur. The appellant received the compensation of the said plot. Thereafter, he filed a reference application before the Reference Judge for enhancement of the compensation and also approached to the High Court for further enhancement. The enhanced amount of compensation has already been received by the appellant. They further submitted that the plot in question has been utilized for the purpose it was acquired and presently on spot, no portion of plot is available to be de-awarded. In this state of affairs, the learned High Court has committed no illegality while dismissing the writ petition in limine. Even otherwise, the writ petition filed by the appellant was hit by the laches. They prayed for dismissal of appeal.
5. We have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the learned Advocates, representing the parties and gone through the record made available along with the impugned judgment, with utmost care. The matter in hand relates to the de-award of the plot measuring 60x70 which was acquired vide award dated 12.08.2006 for approach of road to the New City, Mirpur. The version of the appellant is that the plot in question measuring 60x30, has been utilized and the remaining portion of the plot measuring 3460, has not been utilized for the said purpose, hence the same has to be de-awarded. In this regard, he filed a writ petition before the High Court. Through the impugned judgment, the learned High Court has dismissed the writ petition in limine.
6. First of all, we would like to resolve the point; whether the writ petition was hit by the laches or not? It may be observed here that the question of laches plays an important role in deciding the writ petition. A perusal of the record shows that appellant, herein, submitted an application for de- award of the plot in question on 25.02.2006. Vide letter dated 08.12.2007, the Water and Power Development Authority referred the matter to Mirpur Development Authority for determination of the exact site for de-award. Thereafter, the matter was not proceeded further and the appellant remained mum for a pretty long time and filed the writ petition after a period of more than 15 years.
The relief by way of writ petition is a discretionary relief and a person who slept over his right for a pretty long time, cannot seek acquirable relief. The appellant has not furnished any explanation in the contents of the writ petition for filing the same after a period of huge delay and even no separate application for condonation of delay has been field. In this state of affairs, the writ petition filed before the High Court was hit by lathes. We are fortified in our view from the case reported as Azad Government and others v. Haji Summandar Khan and others [2005 SCR 259], wherein, it has, been observed as under: ".... If we accept the explanation that laches in filing writ petition can be condoned on the ground that the concerned party was waiting for the decision of another identical case, then there would be no end to the litigation. Because other persons who were adversely affected by the offending provision of the Ordinance in the State may seek remedy by filing writ petitions and plead that they were waiting for the judgment of this Court on the point. Obviously, this would frustrate the very purpose of bar of laches in cases of writ jurisdiction. However, even otherwise, the writ petitions filed by the respondents must fail because as has been observed in the earlier part of the judgment the present writ petitions were filed by the respondents after the expiry of 6 to 9 months from the date of the delivery of the judgment by the High Court in the two writ petitions referred to above. The learned counsel for the petitioners/respondents maintained that after the judgment of the High Court in the writ petitions filed by the other land owners they issued a notice to the Government to pay them the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per, kanal within a period of 15 days to one month but they did not oblige. Even if we subtract the period of one month from the period reckoned from the date of the judgment of the High Court in the said writ petitions even then the writ petitions are belated by 5 to 8 months. There is no explanation whatsoever for the aforesaid delay and, thus, the writ petitions would still be hit by laches."
Similarly, in the case reported as Taimoor Khalid vs. Muhammad Azeem and 6 others [2020 SCR 253], it was observed as under: The case of the respondent when adjudged on the touchstone of the principle of law, discussed hereinabove, it postulates that the doctrine of laches was fully attracted as the negligence on the part of the respondent is evident, moreover, by lapse of time, due to the negligence of the respondent, a valuable right was accrued to the appellant as he has finally been selected, therefore, in such a situation, the writ was liable to he dismissed on the sole point of laches ...."
7. There is another aspect of the case that the respondents have categorically stated in the concise statement that plot in question has been utilized for construction of the service road as well as main road of New City Mirpur and at present there is no land available/left vacant which could be de-awarded. Thus, the learned High Court has committed no illegality while dismissing the writ petition in limine. The impugned judgment passed by High Court is legal and perfect in all aspects, warranting no interfere by this Court.
In view of the above, this appeal having no substance, is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.