NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.---This appeal with leave of this Court is directed against the judgment dated 8-2-1983 of the Lahore High Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by 'he appellant, the Province of Punjab. Briefly the facts are that the property in question known as Sanda Road Tubewell Workshop located in Krishan Nagar, Lahore, an evacuee property, spread over an area of 1.5 acres of land, had a workshop, residential premises and offices. The workshop was located over 8 Kanals of the land while the residential premises and offices covered an area of 4 Kanals. The entire property was allotted to the Irrigation Department, Government of Punjab (hereinafter referred to as "the Department") in 1952 by the Rehabilitation Department. Respondent No.4, .S.K.
Samdani, and respondent No.5, Zahoor Ahmed, serving at that time in the Irrigation Department and posted at the said workshop, were allowed to occupy two portions of the residential premises as licensees by the Department. Respondent No.1 is the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, respondent No.2 the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and respondent No.3 the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore.
2. The Central Government by its letter dated 15-12-1953 had accorded sanction for the acquisition of the entire property under section 12(3)(b) of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property)
Ordinance, 1949. Thereafter the matter was referred to the Deputy Commissioner Lahore for the acquisition of the property under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but in 1968 the Deputy Commissioner declined to acquire the property on the ground that it was an evacuee property and that it was the Settlement Department which should be approached for its transfer.
The Provincial Irrigation Department had also been approaching the Settlement Department from 1962 to 1979 for obtaining formal transfer of the property on the basis that the Federal Government had accorded sanction for its acquisition but no action was taken by the Settlement Department for formal transfer of the property in favour of the appellant, the Punjab Government.
In the meantime it transpired that respondents Nos.4 and 5, who had been occupying portions of the residential premises of the said property as licensees of the Department being its employees, approached the Settlement Department for transfer of the said portions under the Settlement laws.
By order, dated 28-11-1960, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner Lahore transferred to respondent No.4 the entire residential portions occupied by respondents Nos.4 and 5. Respondent No.5 went in appeal to the Additional Settlement Commissioner who accepted the appeal and modified the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferring the ground floor portion to respondent No.4 and first floor portion to respondent No.5. Respondent No.4 filed a Revision Petition before the Settlement Commissioner who accepted it by order, dated 27-1.1-1962 restoring the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 28-11-1960. Respondent No.5 challenged the order of the Settlement Commissioner Lahore in a Writ Petition which was accepted on 12-4-1967 and the case was remanded to the Settlement Commissioner for disposal of the Revision Petition in accordance with law. Respondent No.4 filed a L.P.A. In 1967 against the order of the Single Judge dated 12-4-1967 which was pending. In the Lahore High Court but during the arguments it has now been informed by Messrs M. Bilal and Bashir Ahmed Ansari that the matter has been settled amicably between respondents Nos.4 and 5.
In 1979 a Writ Petition was filed by the Department against the respondents in the Lahore High Court challenging the orders of the Settlement Authorities transferring portions of the property in favour of respondents Nos.4 and 5. The Writ Petition was admitted by the Lahore High Court for regular hearing but by the impugned judgment the Writ Petition was dismissed. The judgment of the Lahore High Court is reproduced here:-- "The petitioner challenges the transfer of property under the D.P. (C & R) Act, 1958 in favour of respondents Nos.4 and 5 vide orders, dated 28-11-1960 and 14-9-1961. The petition had been filed on 23-4-1979. The ground is that the Federal Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 accorded sanction to the acquisition of the property in dispute. However, it is stated in para. 3 of the petition that on behalf of the Provincial Government, the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore had refused to acquire the property and directed the petitioner to move the Settlement authorities vide memo. Dated 16-3-1968. The Settlement authorities have not acceded to the request of the petitioner.
(2) From the above statement of facts it would be clear that the orders passed n 1960-61 sought .To be impugned in 1979 cannot be interfered with after lapse of nearly two decades. The petition is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. Secondly, the property having never been acquired for the petitioner and having been disposed of under the relevant law nearly a quarter of a century ago by now, the petitioner has no right whatsoever.
(3) For the foregoing reasons this petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs."
We have heard Mr. M. Nawaz Abbasi, Assistant Advocate-General for the appellant, Mr. Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for official respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3, Mr. M. Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court, for respondent No.4 and Mr. Bashir Ahmed Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court for respondent No.5.
3.There were two grounds on which the Writ Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Lahore High Court. First was on the ground of laches inasmuch as the orders of the Settlement authorities transferring portions of the property to respondents Nos.4 and 5 had been passed in 1960-61 whereas the Writ was filed in 1979. In our view, the High Court erred in dismissing the Writ Petition on the ground of laches. Admittedly, the entire property including the portions transferred to the respondents Nos.4 and 5, had been allotted by the Rehabilitation Department to the Irrigation Department, Government of Punjab, in 1952. Then on 15-12-1953 the Federal Government accorded approval under section 12(3)(b) of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property)
Ordinance, 1949, for the acquisition by the Punjab Government of the said property under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the purpose of running a workshop as a Government concern. Thereafter lengthy correspondence took place between the Department and the Deputy Commissioner/Collector Lahore, regarding issuance of notifications under the Land Acquisition Act and acquisition of the property under that Act for the Department but in 1968 the Deputy Commissioner/Collector Lahore finally took up the stand that since the property was evacuee, it could not be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and that Settlement authorities be approached directly for its transfer to the Department.
After the first order, dated 28-11-1960 had been obtained from the Settlement Department by respondent No.4 for transfer of the entire residential portion in his occupation and in occupation of respondent No.5, a letter was written from the office of Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, dated 7-1-1961 addressed to the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner directing that in case any transfer order had been issued in favour of respondent No.4, the same should be cancelled as the Federal Government had already conveyed their sanction vide letter, dated 15-12-1953 to the acquisition of the property for purposes of running a workshop as a Government concern. No action was taken on this direction but on the other hand further orders were continued to be passed by the Settlement authorities up to the level of the Settlement Commissioner in inter-party dispute between respondents Nos.4 and 5 over the extent of transfer orders.
On coming to know about the transfer orders in favour of respondents Nos.4 and 5 and later on return of the notification papers by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector Lahore that the property could not be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, the Department did not sleep over the matter but went on pursuing the matter with the Settlement Department asking for cancellation of the transfer orders in favour of respondents Nos.4 and 5 and for formal transfer of the property in favour of the department. Copies of the letters are available on record of this appeal and their details are as follows:--
(i) Letter, dated 7-1-1961 from the office of the Chief Settlement 'and Rehabilitation Commissioner to Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore.
(ii) Letter, dated 20-8-1962 of the Department to the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore.
(iii) Letter, dated 15-11-1962 of the Department to the Custodian Evacuee Property, Lahore.
(iv) Letter, dated 2-5-1968 of the Department to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore.
(v) Letter, dated 13-11-1968 of the Department to the Chief Settlement Commissioner.
(vi) Letter, dated 28-3-1972 of the Department to the Chief Settlement Commissioner inviting his attention to 6 letters written during 1968-69 about, cancellation of the transfer orders in favour of respondents Nos.4 and 5.
(vii) Letter, dated 26-2-1979 of the Department to the Settlement Commissioner (ACQ), Punjab, Lahore.
Ultimately the department filed the Writ Petition in 1979 before the Lahore High Court which was dismissed.
4. In the instant case, the Writ Petition could have been filed by the department earlier but it is apparent from the resume of the facts that the department had been pursuing the matter with the Deputy Commissioner/Collector Lahore and the Settlement Department. It has also been noticed that from the office of the Chief Settlement Commissioner a direction had been issued to the Additional Settlement Commissioner that the transfer orders in favour of respondent No.4 should be cancelled. The department had pursued the matter with the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Lahore for acquisition of the property under the Land Acquisition Act till 1968 when the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Lahore finally declined to do so. The department had also applied to the Settlement Department for transfer of the property but for reasons which are not apparent on the record no action was taken by the Settlement authorities on such requests. The Settlement Department has not given any reply as to why none of the communications from the department were acknowledged and why no action was taken thereon. It has also been observed that the entire property had been allotted to the department and respondents Nos.4 and 5 were in occupation of certain portions of the residential premises of the property as licensees of the department. Another significant fact that has been noted is that the transfer orders in favour of respondents Nos.4 and 5 had not attained finality inasmuch as inter-party dispute amongst themselves was going on and the matter had been taken up to the level of L.P.A. In the High a Court and it is only now that we have been informed that the parties have patched 4 up their dispute.
According to the judgment of the High Court, dated 12-4-1967 passed in the Writ Petition filed by respondent No.5, the order of the Settlement Commissioner transferring both the portions to respondent No.4 was set aside and the matter had been remanded for disposal of the Revision Petition in accordance with the law. The transfer orders had, therefore, not attained finality and in the meantime requests had been received from the department for the transfer of the property in their favour. In the circumstances .The case also required determination of the Writ Petition on merits by the High Court.
5. In Pakistan Post Office v. Settlement Commissioner (1987 SCM R 1119) it was emphasised that there is absolutely no justification to equate laches with statutory bar of limitation. It was explained that laches operate as a bar in equity whereas statutory limitation operates as a legal bar to the grant of the remedy. It was observed that in laches all the dictates of justice and equity and balance of legitimate rights are to be weighed. It was also observed as under:-- "In the case of laches, however, the principles of condonation would be totally different. It being in the field of equity, it will not be denied: where either the negligence is not culpable vis-a-vis the merits of the case, or, when there is no equity in favour of the party who would be the gainer in the case the condonation is denied.
It is also for the very same reason that bar of laches in equitable jurisdiction has rightly been equated with principle of estoppel and not the statutory bar of limitation. See Mst. Noor Jehan Begum v. Abdul Majid Shaida and another Law Notes 1967 (N.U.C.) SC 15 Civil Review Petition No. K- 3 of 1967 in Civil Appeal No.K-39 of 1965, decided on 14-4-1967."
The principles laid down in 1987 SCM R 1119 support the case of the appellant that their Writ Petition was not liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.
6. The other ground, on which the Writ Petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed, is also not valid in the circumstances of this case. The High Court has observed that the property having never been acquired for the appellant and having been disposed of under the relevant law nearly a quarter of a century ago, the appellant had no right whatsoever for the transfer of the property.
As observed, respondents Nos.4 and 5 were bare licensees of the department. The department had been repeatedly making claims for cancellation of the transfer orders in favour of respondents Nos.4 and 5 and for formal transfer of the entire property in their favour. The question which required consideration and decision of the High Court was whether in the circumstances of this case the transfer orders could have been validly passed in favour of respondents Nos.4 and 5 and whether the department questions also required a deeper examination of the record of the Settlement' Department. The fact that the transfer orders in favour of respondents Nos.4 and 5 had not attained finality and the matter was still pending in L.PA. When the Writ Petition filed by the department came up before the High Court also escaped the attention of the High Court. The circumstances of the case required detailed consideration and examination of the points raised by the before the High Court.
7. As a result, this appeal is allowed, the judgment, dated 8-2-1983 of the Lahore High Court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the High Court for fresh decision of the Writ Petition filed by the appellant in accordance with law in the light of the observations made in this judgment. There shall be no order as to I costs.