KHIZAR HAYAT, J.--This review application is directed against the order, dated 31-1-1969 passed by a learned Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 575 of 1961 whereby expulsion of Saeed Ahmad respondent from Membership of Co-operative Farming Society of Chak No.194/E.B. Tahsil Vehari (now District Vehari) was held to be illegal and without lawful authority and further that he would remain entitled to all the privileges subject to rules.
2. Briefly stated the facts which gave rise to this review application are that 121 Acres of State land in Chak No.194/E.B. Was leased out to Saeed Ahmad in the year 1944. In the year 1948, the Government of Punjab. Introduced Co-operative Farming Societies Scheme and as a result thereof a Society of this kind was formed in Chak No.194/E.B. The main object of the scheme was the resettlement of refugees and local tenants on State land on co-operative basis and for that matter, the land was leased out to the Societies for further allotment to its members subject to conditions laid down by the Government in their letter No.14836-39/5126-C(6), dated 20-11-1959. Saeed Ahmad who was a local and less, of the State land became member of the Society formed in his village and resultantly was accepted as an allottee of the aforesaid land.
3. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, Multan and Assistant Colonization Officer, Nilibar, Pakpattan, as per instructions of the Government, conducted a joint scrutiny and found that Saeed Ahmad was ineligible for the membership of the Society and allotment of the land under the Co- operative Farming Society because he owned 15 Acres 7 Kanals 2 Marlas of land in Chak No.14/W.B., Tehsil Vehari; he did not cultivate the land himself and that he had introduced Ghulam Muhammad in Kharif , 1960, as his sub-tenant in violation of the conditions laid down for allotment under the scheme. It appears from the record that he was expelled from the Society and ejected from the land before 11-7-1961, Saeed Ahmad preferred an appeal challenging his dis-member-- ship and ejectment to the Commissioner, Co-operative Societies, who, vide his order, dated 19-7- 1961 rejected the same. The Co-operative Society of Chak No.194/E.B. Met under the Chairmanship of Muhammad Suleman on 20-7-1961 and resolved 'that since the membership of Saeed Ahmad has been cancelled by the Commissioner and he had also surrendered the possession in favour of Ghulam Muhammad son of Shahab Din, therefore, the latter would continue cultivating, the said land. The Society passed another resolution on 30-6-1962 in favour of Ghulam Muhammad recommending to the department that 121 Acres of land in Square No.51 which was previously allotted to Saeed Ahmad should be allotted to him (Ghulam Muhammad the applicant in this review application) who was enrolled as member of the Society. This recommendation was endorsed by the Assistant Registrar on 7-7-1962 and, finally, the proposal for allotment of land to Ghulam Muhammad was approved by the Registrar on 17-7-1962.
4. Saeed Ahmad, earlier allottee on the other hand, being aggrieved of the order passed by the Commissioner, Co-operative Farming Society, rejecting his appeal had filed a writ petition challenging his dis-membership and ejectment being void, without lawful authority and of no legal effect. At the hearing of this writ petition it was contended that expulsion of Saeed Ahmad from membership was illegal because no resolution was passed at the general meeting of the Society held in accordance with bye-law No.10 of the bye-laws. Despite several calls on that day none appeared on behalf of the respondent and, therefore, the learned Division Bench held as follows:- "4. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent to contest the writ petition although a written statement was filed as far back as on the 10th of April, 1962. We have gone through the written statement and find that no reply has been given to the allegation of the petitioner that the Assistant Registrar, Co--operative Societies and the Commissioner, Co-operative Farming Societies had no lawful authority to expel him from membership of the Society or to eject him from the land which he possessed by virtue of his being its member.
5. In these circumstances and particularly in view of bye-law 10 of the bye-laws referred to above we have no option but to accept this writ petition and to declare that the impugned order is without any lawful authority and has no legal effect. The petitioner, therefore, continues to be a member of the Co-operative Society and entitled to all its privileges subject to the rules."
5. Ghulam Muhammad, the aforementioned subsequent allottee filed a review application against the aforesaid order which was dismissed on 3-4-1969 being incompetent. Against this order, he filed C.P.S.L.A. No.97 of 1969 in the Supreme Court which was converted into an appeal and was accepted on 11-3-1970. It was held therein that an order passed by the High Court in the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction is open to review. Consequently, the review application was remanded to this Court for disposal in accordance with law.
6. In support of the order under review, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Saeed Ahmad argues that the review application filed by Ghulam Muhammad was barred by time under Article 162 of the Limitation Act wherein 20 days time has been allowed for filing a "review" against a judgment passed by the High Court in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction from the date of the order. In this case, the order under review was passed on 31-1-1969, whereas the review application was filed on 20-4-1969, about 79 days after the passing of the order under review, thus the review application is hopelessly time-barred. We are of the view that this time limit does not run against the applicant because he was not a party to the proceedings in the writ petition filed by Saeed Ahmad. The applicant had by way of abundant caution filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay. We are satisfied that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the review application within the prescribed time as he was not a party in the writ proceedings. We are constrained to observe that Saeed Ahmad was at fault in having not impleaded Ghulam Muhammad as a party in his writ petition which was heard and disposed of on 31-1-1969 because Ghulam Muhammad, the subsequent allottee of the disputed land had obtained the allotment in 1962 (which must have been in the knowledge of the writ petitioner) and he had acquired valuable right in the land and Saeed Ahmad should not have fired at his back. We, therefore, accept the application of Ghulam Muhammad for condoning the delay occasioned in filing the present application.
7. It has next argued that since Ghulam Muhammad was not a party in the previous writ proceedings, therefore, he has no locus standi to ask for the review of the order, dated 31-1-1969 passed in the writ petition filed by Saeed Ahmad. Reliance has been placed on Qasim Hussain v.
Anjuman Islamia PLD 1974 Lah. 346 and AIR 1935 Rang. 346. The contention has no force for the reason that Ghulam Muhammad has beers allotted the land and has been in possession since 1962. When his rights were put in the doubt by the impugned order, he has got a right to challenge the impugned order. We do not feet inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel of Saeed Ahmad for the added reason that the learned Supreme Court has accepted the appeal of Ghulam Muhammad and remanded the case to hear his review application.
8. It was next contended that while dealing with review application, no fresh material or evidence can be taken into consideration and the situation prevailing at the time of passing of the order under review should be seen. In the case in hand, the writ petition was disposed of on 31-1-1969. The main ground which appears to have weighed with the learned Judges of the High Court was that Saeed Ahmad could be dismembered only by the Co-operative Farming Society by passing a resolution as laid down in Bye-law 10, and not by the Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Department. Since the only respondent, Co-operative Farming Department, was not represented on the date of hearing of the writ petition, therefore, the full facts were not brought to the notice of the learned Division Bench. As noted earlier, there did exist a resolution, dated 20-7-1961 removing Saeed Ahmad from membership. Had this fact been brought to the notice of the learned Division Bench on 31-1-1969, the writ petition would have not succeeded. The learned counsel has not challenged the genuineness of the aforesaid resolution and, therefore, we find that the requirement of law pertaining to the removal of Saeed Ahmad from membership of the Co-operative Society and ejectment from State land had been completely met with. It may also be observed that the validity of the allotment order made in favour of the applicant had never been challenged. That remains intact. There--fore, he is entitled to his rights and the land in dispute.
9. We are, therefore, inclined to review the order of this Court, dated 31-1-1969 as it had proceeded on the basis of non-existent facts. There is yet another aspect of the case which should be taken note of. Ghulam Muhammad (applicant) has been in cultivating possession of the land in dispute since Kharif, 1960. He was lawfully allotted the saple land since July, 1962. Nineteen years have passed since that allotment. It would not be fair to dislodge him after such a long time.
10. For what has been stated above, the review application succeeds, impugned order, dated 31-1- 1969 is recalled. The writ petition is rejected. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.
H . B . T .Review granted.