MUSHTAQ AHMAD KHAN, J.--This order will dispose of three connected writ petitions No.7962/92, 7960/1992 and 7961/1992 inasmuch as in all the three writ petitions the same notifications of acquisition of land have been challenged and they give rise to same controversial questions of fact of law.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case out of which these Constitutional petitions have arisen, are that vide Notification dated 6-12-1982 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the land in dispute in all the writ petitions alongwith other land was proposed to be acquired by respondent No.3 for the benefit of respondent No.4. Notification under section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 1-10-1985 and Notification under section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 3- 10-1985 and award was rendered on 31-10-1985. These notifications were challenged by various persons in various writ petitions including writ petition No.63 of 1986 which was dismissed vide order dated 2-7- 1988 passed by this Court. Thereafter same notifications were challenged by certain other persons in Writ Petition No.2771 of 1991 and in five other connected matters, which have also been dismissed by my brother his Lordship Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Khan, J. Vide order dated 19-7-1992 on the ground of laches. ICA has been filed against the Writ Petition No.63 of 1986 which is stated to have been admitted to regular hearing and another ICA is also stated to have been filed against the order passed in Writ Petition No.2771-of 1991 which has not been admitted to regular hearing as yet.
3. The petitioners of the three writ petitions referred to above are different persons than the one who have challenged the impugned notifications impugned in this writ petition, through various writ petitions, which have been dismissed by the learned single Judge of this Court. The petitioners in the present writ petitions have also challenged the said notifications on the grounds that the notifications are illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and inoperative against the proprietary rights of the petitioners. These petitions have been filed on 11-8-1992.
4. Mr. Irshad Ahmad Qureshi, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioners whereas Syed Jamshed Ali Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.4 at the preliminary stage in pursuance of the pre-admission notice issue to respondent No.4. A preliminary objection has been raised in the reply submitted to the writ petitions by respondent No.4 that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the principle of laches and further that the same notifications have been upheld in the earlier writ petitions which have been dismissed on the same ground, hence, the present are also liable to be dismissed for the same reasons.
5. Mr. Irshad Ahmad Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the notification under section 4 was issued on 6-12-1982 and the. Notification under section 5 was issued on 1-10- 1985 after a period of about three years, the total acquisition proceedings had become void in view of the provisions of rule 7 of the rules framed under the Land Acquisition Act which rule was enacted by way of amendment, on 22-2-1983 and, that the principle of laches is not attracted in the case in view of law laid down in case of Pakistan Post Office vs. Settlement Commissioner and others 1987 SCM R 1119. Learned counsel has argued that in fact whole proceedings have been held secretly and the petitioners were not personally served nor any public notice was issued and as the acquisition proceedings are mala fide on facts. Learned counsel has further argued that the orders passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court are already subject-matter of ICAs and, therefore, they are not binding on this Bench and as such the reasons given in those orders for dismissal of the said writ petitions are not binding for the purpose of decision of these writ petitions, particularly when ICA against the order passed in Writ Petition No.63 of 1986 decided on 2-7-1988 has already been admitted to regular hearing which order has been relied upon by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the Writ Petition No.2771 of 1991 and other five connected writ petitions.
6. As against the above arguments, Syed Jamshed Ali, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has argued that Rule 7 referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not retrospective and, therefore, shall not apply to the present acquisition proceedings as held in case of Muhammad Hussain and 2 others vs. Member Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 3 others 1988 CLC 1745, relevant portion whereof is reproduced as under :- "Certainly Rules of 1983, have no retrospective effect and the provisions of these Rules cannot apply to acquisition made in 1981 by the Government, viz. The Provincial Government does figure in the Land Acquisition Act and as per provisions of guidelines of 1970 in cases of compensation exceeding five lacs reference to the Government was necessary. In the present case, the concerned Member, Board of Revenue accorded approval in his capacity as Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Revenue Department."
Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has further argued that acquisition proceedings have been held in accordance with the law and having been challenged by the petitioners after a period of about 10 years w.e.f, the Notification under section 4 of the Act are definitely barred by the principle of laches inasmuch as even the litigation challenging the aforementioned notification is pending in this Court for the last about 6 years and it is almost in the knowledge of every previous owner of the land in question. The petitioners being negligent throughout and having failed to challenge the acquisition proceedings within a reasonable time, cannot challenge the notifications and on the basis thereof finalized acquisition proceedings which have been upheld by this Court in various cases cannot be challenged in August, 1992. The present writ petitions are, therefore, liable to be dismissed on account of bar of laches. It has been argued that notice in accordance with the provisions of section 4 were issued, hence, all other procedure laid down in various provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of acquiring the land has been followed and, therefore, the petitioners cannot challenge the said proceedings merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises after a delay of about 10 years. Learned counsel has argued that there is no cavil with this proposition that orders passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court is not binding on this Bench but keeping in view the rule of consistency and propriety this Court seldom dissents with the judgment rendered by the other learned Single Benches, particularly when the same are in the nature of judgments in rem and even if are not binding effect; have definitely a persuasive force which is just near to the binding force. Merely because ICAs have been admitted against those orders in no way detract, the importance and binding nature of the judgments rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court.
7. I have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, this writ petition has been filed after a period of about 10 years w.e.f, the date of issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 6-12-1982.
There is a presumption regularity of proceedings conducted by the public functionaries and unless and until there is evidence to the effect that the procedure under the law was not followed, it shall be presumed that the action taken by the public authorities was in accordance with the law. It has been held in case of Lahore Improvement Trust. Lahore vs. The Custodian. Evacuee Property. West Pakistan. Lahore and 4 others PLD 1971 Supreme Court 811, that every effort should be made to save an order passed by public authority instead of striking it down inasmuch as it has a presumption of correctness in its favour. It cannot be said that proceedings of acquisition have not been conducted by respondents in accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. Rule 7 referred to by the learned counsel having been enacted for the first time on 22-2-1983, is not retrospective and, therefore, cannot effect the acquisition proceedings which had been initiated prior thereto in view of law laid down in case of Muhammad Hussain and 2 others vs. Member (Revenue!. Board of Revenue Punjab. Lahore and 3 others 1988 CLC 1745, and hence, it cannot be said that the acquisition proceedings are void. Even otherwise a void order and proceedings have to be challenged within a reasonable time as held in case of S. Sharif Ahmad Hashmi vs. Chairman.
Screening Committee. Lahore and other 1978 SCM R 367 and cannot be just ignored and are not always to be struck down. The petitioners have rendered no sufficient explanation as to why they have not challenged the notifications in question within a reasonable time even after the litigation had been started in this Court and had been decided in favour of respondent No.4 in many of writ petitions which are now stated to be pending adjudication in the ICA. Resultantly, the ratio of case of Pakistan Post Office vs. Settlement Commissioner and others 1987 SCM R 1119 is inapplicable to the case in hand and the bar of laches is fully applicable against the petitioners as held in the judgment rendered in Writ Petition No.2771/91 decided on 19-7-1992 whereby the same notifications have been upheld by this Court merely because ICAs are pending against the orders passed by this court dismissed the earlier writ petition including the one referred to above is not a ground for holding that the judgments rendered by Single Benches of this Court are not in the field inasmuch as merely filing of appeal does not vacate the judgment which remains in the field till it is ultimately set aside. Hence, I hold that te said notifications cannot be challenged by the petitioners in these writ petitions which are barred by the principle of laches.
Resultantly, these writ petitions have no force. The same are, therefore, dismissed in limine.