The captioned petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment of the High Court dated 11.11.2022, whereby, Writ Petitions No. 384 and 385 of 2017, filed by the petitioners, herein have been dismissed.
2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the petitioners, herein, filed a review petition before the Custodian, whereby, they partially challenged the validity and correctness of allotment dated 22.03.1956 and Proprietary Rights Transfer Order (PRTO) Nos. 84 and 65, issued on 29.07.1989, in favour of the private respondents, herein, in respect of the land bearing Survey Nos. 443 min and 452 min measuring 11 hand, 3 marla, situste at village Arnota Phagwati, Tehsil Hajira Distt. Poonch, on the ground that the said land was in possession of the father of the petitioners since 1950 being refugee and the private-respondents collusively got allotted the same in their names vide impugned allotment chit. The learned Custodian dismissed the review petition on the ground of limitation vide judgment dated 17.02.2017 and Writ Petitions No. 384 and 385 of 2017 filed before the High Court against the said judgment met the same fate vide impugned judgment dated 11.11.2022, which is the subject matter of the captioned petition for leave to appeal.
2. Sh. Muhammad Saleem, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued the case at some length and stated that the process of allotment as well as issuance of PRTO was made secretly and the petitioners immediately after gaining the knowledge filed review petition before the Custodian. He added that plausible explanation was furnished in the review petition for not filing the same within limitation, but both the Courts below failed to appreciate this aspect of the case in a legal manner. He further added that valuable rights of the petitioners are involved in the matter but the Courts below decided the case in a hasty manner, hence, interference by this Court is warranted under law. He lastly prayed that important legal question of public importance is involved in this petition, hence, grant of leave is justified.
3. On the other hand Raja Muhammad Hafeez Tahir Advocate, the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 16 defended the impugned judgments and submitted that the same are perfect and legal, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted. He submitted that the review petition filed before the learned Custodian was hopelessly time barred and the petitioners failed to furnish any plausible explanation for a long delay of more than 55 years; therefore, the same was rightly dismissed by the Custodian on the point of limitation and the same has been upheld by the learned High Court. He lastly submitted that no question of law of public importance is involved in the case, hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates representing the parties and gone through the record of the case made available. The perusal of the record shows that the allotment chit was issued 22.03.1956 and in the light of the same PRTO was issued on 29.07.1989.
The petitioners challenged the same before the Custodian by filing review petition on 17.07.2013, after a period of more than 55 years, whereas, the limitation for filing review petition before the Custodian under Rule 17(3) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Rules, 1950, is 30 days. The petitioners, herein, in para 10 of the review petition have stated that the impugned allotment permit and Proprietary Rights Transfer Order came into their knowledge some time ago but no specific date has been mentioned that as to how they acquired the knowledge of the same. The petitioners neither filed an affidavit in support of this para nor filed a separate application for condonation of delay. It is a settled principle of law that a party seeking the condonation of delay has to satisfactorily explain the delay of each and every day but in the instant case the petitioners, herein, failed to furnish any such explanation, thus, the review petition filed by the petitioners before the Custodian was hopelessly time barred. The learned Custodian has rightly dismissed the same on the ground of limitation and the learned High Court has rightly upheld the judgment of the Custodian. The same proposition came under consideration of this Court in the case reported as Deeba Begum alias Wahiba v. Safia Iqbal & 8 others [2021 SCR 302], wherein this Court while relying on another case law report as Mehmood Ahmed vs. Custodian and 10 others [2016 SCR 90] held that: "6. The limitation for filing review petition before the Custodian of Evacuee Property has been provided under rule 17 (3) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Rules, 1950, as 30 days. The appellant, herein, in para 9 of the review petition has stated that the impugned allotment permits and proprietary rights transfer order (PRTO) came into her knowledge a week ago but no specific date has been mentioned that as to how she acquired the knowledge of the same. The appellant, herein, neither filed any affidavit in support of this para nor filed a separate application for condonation of delay. It is a settled principle of law that a party seeking the condonation of delay has to satisfactorily explain the delay of each and every day but in the instant case, the appellant, herein has failed to furnish any such explanation, thus, the review petition filed by the appellant, herein, before the Custodian was hopelessly time barred. The learned Custodian has rightly dismissed the same on the ground of limitation besides on merits and the learned High Court has rightly maintained the judgment passed by the learned Custodian. In a such like case reported as Mehmood Ahmed vs. Custodian & 10 others [2016 SCR 90], wherein, this Court in para 6 of the judgment has observed as under: "6. The limitation for filing review petition under Rule 17(3) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Rules, 1950, is 30 days. In the review petition, the petitioner, appellant herein, has not uttered a single word that he was not in knowledge of the Proprietary Rights Transfer Order and allotment and as to when he acquired the knowledge of the order impugned in the review petition. The appellant also has not made any request for condonation of delay. Rather nothing has been stated in respect of the limitation in the review petition that how and when, the petitioner acquired the knowledge of allotment and Proprietary Rights Transfer Order issued in favour of Respondent No. 3.
The review petition was hopelessly time burred, it merited dismissal on the sole ground."
The bare perusal of the statutory provision i.e. Rule 17(3) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Rules, 1950, and the principle of law laid down in the above referred pronouncements lead us to the conclusion that the review petition was hopelessly time barred and the learned Custodian was justified to dismiss the same on the sole point of limitation and the learned High Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity while concurring with the findings recorded by the Custodian.
In view of the above, the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below are in accordance with law and no question of law of public importance is involved in the matter which is prerequisite for grant of leave. Resultantly, finding no force this petition for leave to appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.