1. ' BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.--This appeal, by leave of the Court, relates to an evacuee land situated in Bagh Town. The appellant seeks cancellation of an order of allotment of one Kanal of evacuee land made on 4th of March 1954, in favour of Malik Abdul Aziz, who passed away a long time ago. The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the present appellant challenging the order of the learned Custodian of Evacuee Property who had dismissed his revision petition.
2. ' The facts of the case, as presented on behalf of the appellant, are that the land under Survey No,1010/265 situated in Bagh Town was, as claimed, allotted in the name of Kh. Mehtab Din, appellant, on 15th of October 1950. The appellant's sister Mst. Rashida Begum was married to Malik Abdul Aziz. The appellant alleges that he allowed Malik Abdul Aziz to construct a house on a portion of the land in Survey No,1010/265, mentioned above, so that his sister may settle there but he did not surrender the allotment of the said land. A house was duly constructed therefter. Malik Abdul Aziz subsequently died.He was survived by two widows Mst. Rashid Begum and Mst. Ghulam Fatima and a daughter Mst. Safia Akram. Mst. Ghulam Fatima has also since passed away, while Mst.
3. Rashida Begum and Mst. Safia Akram are now respondents in the present petition. It is now claimed by the appellant that when he moved an application for grant of proprietary rights in respect of the land allotted to him he came to know in early February 1985 that 1 Kanal of land out of Survey No, 1010/265, allotted to him, had been cancelled from the name of Kh. Mehtab Din and had been allotted to Malik Abdul Aziz on 4th of March 1954.
4. ' The appellant filed a revision petition before the learned Rehabilitation Commissioner on 5th of February 1985 against the order of 4th of March 1954 wherein he pleaded his version noted above and claimed that limitation was to run from the date of knowledge. The revision petition was dismissed by the learned Rthabilitation Commissioner on 29th of April 1985. Then a second revision petition was filed before the learned Custodian of Evacuee Property on 10th of July 1985. It was rejected on 13th of January 1988 by a learned Judge of the High Court, who had been designated as Additional custodian for disposal of that petition. A writ petiton filed in the High Court was dismissed on 28th of July 1992.
5. ' We have heard Mr. M. Tabassum Aftab Alvi, Advocate, in support of the appeal while Syed Nazir Hussain. Shah Kazmi, Advocate, has submitted arguments on behalf of respondent No,5 Mst. Safia Akram. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the order of 4th of March 1954, by which the allotment to the extent of one Kanal of land was cancelled from the name of the appellant and the same was allotted to Malik Abdul Aziz, was passed without hearing the appellant and also suffered from legal defect that the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner, who had passed that order, was not competent to cancel the allotment of evacuee property. On the basis of these two grounds it was submitted by Mr. M. Tabassum Aftab Alvi that the order was void and, therefore, should have been set aside without regard to the fact that it was challenged after a period exceeding 30 yeaRs, The learned counsel also alternatively contended that there is nothing on the record to counter the assertion of the appellant that he was not aware till February 1985 about the existence of the order passed by the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner on 4th of March 1954 and, therefore, the Rehabilitation Commissioner and the learned Custodian of Evacuee Property fell in error in dismissing the revision petition filed by Kh. Mehtab Din. It was consequently submitted that the judgment of the High Court under appeal was thus not sustainable.
6. ' We must first take note of an important legal objection raised by the learned counsel for respondent Mst. Safia Akram. It was pointed out by Syed Nazir Hussain Shah Kazmi that the revision petition filed by Kh. Mehtab Din before the Custodian of Evacuee Property was hopelessly time- barred. He pointed that the Rehabilitation Commissioner dismissed the revision petition pending with him on 29th of March 1985, and the revision petition was filed before the Custodian of Evacuee Property on 10th of July 1985 while it should have been filed within the prescribed period of 15 days.
7. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel that this point was duly raised before the High Court and finds mention in the judgment under appeal. This point has been duly raised in the concise statement filed on behalf of Mst. Safia Akram in this Court. The learned counsel for the appellant could not furnish any valid explanation about this legal infirmity. It is an objection which goes to the root of the case. The revision petition filed before the Custodian of Evacuee Property was hopelessly time-barred and there is no question that the appellant should get a relief in the shape of quashment of the order of Rahabilitation Commissioner which was challenged before the learned Custodian. Therefore, the present appeal entails dismissal on that short ground.
8. ' The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the order passed by the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner on 4th of March 1954 was void on the grounds already mentioned may have some force but going into this question is only of academic interest because, even if it is accented, this contention condones the delay in filing of the revision petition before the Rehabilitation Commissioner. The delay which occurred in instituting the revision petition with the Custodian remains unexplained and stands as an insurmountable hurdle.
9. ' It must also be pointed out that the argument that there is no limitation regarding a void order is not always to be struck down regardless of the consequences of such a decision. On this subject this Court expressed the following view in the case reported as Mirza Lal Hussain v. Custodian, of Evacuee Property and others 1992 SCMR 214:-- "11. No case having been made out for condonation, we now pass on to the other limb of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the order of allotment in favour of Abdul Aziz was void on account of the fact that it had been passed during the subsistence of a previous allotment order made in his favour. The contention of the learned counsel is that a void order has to be struck down without regard to limitation. The cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellant have already been mentioned. These judgments do lay down the proposition canvassed by Ch. Muhammad Sharif Tariq that there is no limitation so far as a void order is concerned.
10. However, it is not a universal rule which may be necessarily applied in every case without regard to the consequences. While this rule would apply to cases where a person who is adversely affected by such an order does not come to know of its existence and has had no occasion to challenge that order there is no warrant for the conclusion that a void order should be left unchallenged.
11. ' If a person comes to know of a void order which adversely affects him but still he does not challenge it Within a reasonable time the Courts may validly refuse to ignore it on the ground of laches, acquiescence or estoppel."
12. ' We then reproduced the following passage from Sharif Ahmad Hashmi v. The Chairman, Screening Committee, Lahore (1980 SCM R 711).
13. "This passage does not mean that a void order is always to be struck down regardless of the consequences of such a decision, but that a void order must be struck down provided there is no statute or principle of law which would make it unjust or inequitable to strike down the void order.
14. This qualification is very important, and that is why, for example, a writ may be refused against a void order this would enable the petitioner to circumvent the provisions of a statute of limitation.
15. [See this Court's judgment in Civil Appeals 150 and 166 of 1970 Jalal-ud-Din and others v. Mst. Noor Sain and others) and (Jalal-ud-Din and others v. Shams-ud-Din and others) respectively. Similarly in Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (PLD 1964 SC 829) a writ petition had been filed against an order which this Court held was void. Nonetheless the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by acquiescence on the part of the petitioner. There is also ample authority for the proposition that a writ against a void order may be dismissed, if the petitioner is estopped by his conduct from challenging it, or if he has been guilty of laches."
16. ' The upshot of the aforementioned discussion is that the High Court was right in dismissing the writ petition in veiw of the circumstances of the case. The appeal, therefore, has no merit and is dismissed with costs.