' This petition is directed against the order dated 7th May, 1978 passed by the Settlement Commissioners (Central Settlement Cell) whereby with reference to the petitioners' applications dated 27th August, 1977 and 30th April,1978 regarding the transfer of the undisposed area of Plot No,1548 Shandadpur, informed them that the Member Board of Revenue had declined to accept their offer "for want of legal provision" and therefore their application had been filed.
' The facts briefly stated are that the petitioner's predecessor Umer Din claimed to be the transferee of the entire plot bearing Custodian No,II 0-254/Municipal No, H/1584 (Survey No,1-B-1-38/A.B.)
Shandadpur. Disputes having arisen as to the precise area transferred to the petitioner Umer-Din, by the order passed by the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner Khairpur Division at Sukkur on 11th June, 1973, in the presence of Mr.Saroor Ahmed, Advocate for appellants Abdul Ghaffar, Haji Mohammad Tufail and Mr.M.A.Jamali, Advocate for Umer Din, it was held:- "I, therefore, hold that respondent, Umer Din is entitled to only that much area which is in his physical possession i,e, whereon he had installed Saw Mill and residential portion together with open space within the boundary of residential portion 4,288 + 240=4,528 Sq. Ft. i,e, 530 Sq. Yds.
Approximately.This area will be more than sufficient for the requirements of the respondent in view of peculiar nature of his business, while the petitioners have rightly been transferred portion in their respective possession which are quite independent. The P.T.D.Issued in their favour should remain intact. The respondent is held eligible for 4,528 Sq.Ft. The remaining shops in possession of others alongwith open space measuring 7,635 Sq.Ft. Which is without any construction and even without any boundary after proper measurement and survey be disposed of according to law. The case is decided as above."
2. Against the above order Revision Petition was filed which was finally disposed of by concerned Settlement Authority with the following observation:- "The Additional Settlement Commissioner Khairpur Division passed an exhaustive order on this point and has entitled the petitioner to the extent of 530 Sq. Yds. Which was found to be more than sufficient for the requirement of the respondent in view of the peculiar nature of the business. As a matter of fact he was in physical possession of 4,528 Sq.Ft. Whereon he raised a Kutcha construction and installed a Saw Mill on the part of plot and residential premises besides a major portion is lying open and vacant. These observations have been made after site inspection as discussed earlier. There is no illegallity, impropriety or incorrectness which may require inteference.
The petitioner was transferred plot on which he has raised industrial concern."
' With the above observations and reasons given in the said order, the aforementioned Revision Petition was dismissed on 3-11-1973.
3. Umer Din then filed Constitutional Petition No,96/74 which came up before the learned Single Judge (Mr.Justice Dorab Patel as he then was) who observed as follows:- "In the events that happened, the case of the petitioner was considered by an Additional Settlement Commissioner, Khairpur at Sukkur, who transferred only an area of 530 Sq.Yds. To the petitioner, upheld the transfers in favour of respondents No,3 and 4, and as there still remains a large open area he directed that it should be auctioned. This order was passed on 11th June, 1973 and the petitioner filed a revision against it before the Settlement Commissioner which was heard and dismissed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Hyderabad, by his order dated 3rd November,1973."
' The petition was dismissed by the learned Judge with the following observations: "The only other argument advanced by Mr. Jamali was that as the petitioner had admittedly set up a saw mill, he was entitled to the land on which the saw mill had been constructed and he was entitled to the balance of the said plot because the saw mill business required space for storing timber. Now, as I pointed out earlier, the Additional Settlement Commissioners have, in the impugned orders, upheld the transfer to the petitioner of the area not only on which his saw mill is constructed, but also the area on which he has his residence and a further area which is not specified. In this context, the contention of learned counsel really means that this further area transferred to the petitioner is not sufficient for his business. But this is a question of fact which was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Settlement Department and learned counsel has not been able to show even prima facie that this discretion was exercised perversely."
4. Against the above Judgment given in C.P.No,96/74 it can safely be said that Umer Din (the predecessor of the present petitioners) was satisfied as he did not further challenge the said Judgment by filing any appeal or other proceeding open under the law to him. Thus the finding of the Settlement Authorities that Umer Din was the transferee of an area measuring 530 Sq. Yds. And that Abdul Ghaffar and Mohammad Tufail, the Respondents Nos.3 and 4 in C.P.No,96/74 were transferees of the shops in their respective possession and that there still remained a large open area which was directed to be auctioned, attained finality.
5. It however appears that after the dismissal of his earlier Constitution Petition (C.P.No,96/74) Umer Din made two applications dated 27th August, 1977 and 30th April, 1978 for the transfer of the undisposed of area to him, which were declined by the impugned order passed on 7th May,1978 "for want of legal provision". Umer Din in the meantime died on 6th November,1980. His legal representatives on 27th December,1980 again made an application to the Board of Revenue (District Settlement Cell) Nawabshah at Hyderabad, in response to which they were informed that Umer Din had been transferred the area measuring 530 Sq.Yds. Of Plot No,H/1584 situated at Shandadpur and that the remaining area 920 Sq.Yds. Has been included in the list of available properties in the light of orders passed by the Member Board of Revenue and "therefore no action could be taken at this stage."
6. The petitioners in the circumstances stated above have now filed present petition on 7th April,1981 invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
7. At the very outset I find that this petition suffers from laches and delay. The order refusing the transfer of the remaining area/ undisposed-area of Plot No,1584 was passed on 7th May, 1978.
Against the aforementioned order this petition was filed on 7th April. 1981 i,e, p after more than 2 years and 9 months, which amounts to waiver and acquiescence. The petition on this account alone is liable to be dismissed. Reference if needed be made to the cases reported as 1968 SCMR 1307 and 1970 SCMR 574.
8. Mr.Mohammad Zaki the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners cannot be deemed to have been guilty of any laches or delay as they were making representations. He referred to the order dated 29th January, 1981 which according to him shows that even as late as 27th December,1980 they had approached the Board of Revenue (Settlement Cell) and that the impugned order rejecting the representation was passed on 29th January,1981 whereafter they filed the present petition.
' The arguments of the learned counsel advanced as above cannot be accepted as after the passing of the order dated 7th May,1978 by the Settlement Commissioner Sind rejecting the application of Umer Din to transfer to him the undisposed of area of the plot in question, there was B no r:ason or scope to make any representation under the law. Any alleged representation not warranted by any provisions of law, could not be validly made a pretence for the petitioner to come to the Court at a belated stage.
' Even otherwise I find that the orders of the Settlement Authorities passed on 11th June, 1973 and 3rd November, 1973, the relevant portions of which have been reproduced above and which orders were upheld by this Court in C.P.No,96/74, having not been challenged by filing any appeal or petition for leave to appeal, have attained finality.
9. For the above reasons, I find no valid grounds, for the petitioner to have come to this Court invoking constitutional jurisdiction of this Court once again after dismissal of C.P.No,96/74 filed by their predecessor Umer Din. This petition in my opinion is abuse of process of the Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Since no body appears on behalf of the responded, there shall be no order as to costs.