' Through this application the petitioners seek the review of the order dated 25th April 1979 whereby Writ Petition No, 627/R of 1977, filed by them, challenging the allotment of the land in dispute to the respondents-predecessor-in-interest, namely Nathu, was dismissed by me. The facts of the case which have been given in detail in that order 'need not be repeated. The writ petition was dismissed by me on the grounds of !Aches and that there was no material on the record to substantiate, that the land allotted to the petitioners' father namely, Din Muhammad was substituted by Khasra No, 556, during consolidation proceedings.
2. The writ petition was filed by the petitioners on 15th April, 1977 challenging the order dated 11th December, 1962. The explanation given by the learned counsel for the petitioners, for such inordinate delay was, that on 20th October, 1969 they moved an application, before the Settlement Commissioner, to be impleaded as a party, in a revision petition filed by one Suleman, against the allotment of the land of Nathu, and that they have been pursuing that remedy. It may be observed that despite an adjournment allowed to the petitioners, certified copy of any such application, was not produced by them. In any case the precise date on which such an application was made, thus could not be ascertained. Anyhow according to the entries in the Khasra Girdawari, the petitioners have been cultivating the land as tenants under the respondents. They could not have been unaware of the impugned orders, but they did not file any appeal or revision against the orders dated 11th December, 1962. Their effort to be impleaded as a party in the capacity of respondents, in the revision petition, filed by Suleman, would not have entitled them to any relief. I have not been persuaded to hold contrary to the view, earlier taken, in this respect, by me. The writ petition suffered from laches and the petitioners' conduct also disentitled them to any relief under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
3. As regards the merits of the case, the submission of the petitioners' learned counsel was, that before allotting the land to Nathu, their predecessor-in-interest was neither served with any notice nor heard. He further argued that under clause (ix) of para. 4-A of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme the land allotted to the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, as a displaced person from Jammu & Kashmir State did not form part of the compensation pool and that, therefore, its allotment to Nathu deceased was void.
4. I am unable to accept these submissions as well. Since the petitioners did not file any appeal or revision, there is no finding of the departmental authorities on the question of service of notice. The record of the authorities below have also not been summoned by them. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the petitioners' contention, and conclusively hold that their predecessor-in-interest was not served and heard.
5. As observed by the Supreme Court in Messrs Conforce Ltd. v. Syed Ali Shah, etc., the term void is often over-worked. The order dated 11th December, 1962 could have been challenged by the petitioner' predecessor-in-interest or for that matter by the petitioners, through appeal A and revision. The order gave rise to certain rights in favour of the respondents. I am not inclined to strike it down, by dubbing it as void, after the expiry of about 15 years.
6. While deciding the writ petition, as observed above, I held that allocation of Khasra No, 566 to Din''Muhammad was not proved. On 4th August, 1979 the petitioners filed a C. M. Application praying that the correct number of the Khasra in dispute was 553. The objection that Khasra No, 556 was not allotted to Din Muhammad could be spelt out from the written statement filed by respondents on 31st January, 1978 but the petitioners did not move in the matter.
7. The points urged by the petitioners do not fall within the scope of review. Even on merits they have no case.
8. For all these reasons, this review application fails,. And is dismissed accordingly but with no order as to costs. PLD 1977 SC 599