' This appeal under section 12 of Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance (Ordinance IV of 1979) involves only the question, whether petition filed under section 11 of the above Ordinance before District Judge, Lahore was barred by limitation and arises out of the facts and events enumerated below:- - ' A piece of land measuring 1-K, 9-M, 100-Sft. in Khasra No,1504 situated on Hall Road, Lahore, was a Muslim Waqf. On 7-10-1968, Chief Administrator of Auqaf, West Pakistan took over and assumed its administration, control and management. Appellant claiming to have some interest in the property challenged the vires of the Notification, in Writ Petition No,201 of 1969. It was dismissed on 14-2-1969, by a Division Bench of this Court comprising late Maulvi Mushtaq Hussain, J. and Muhammad Gul, J., on the short ground of availability of an alternate remedy in the Waqf Law. Thereupon, a petition was presented to the District Judge, on 24-2-1969. It was dismissed by him on 30-5-1970 on short score of bar of limitation. Thereafter, she approached the Settlement Department and laid claim to the property on the ground that she was entitled to it on the basis of three times the plinth area of the property transferred to her. After availing of the remedies in the hierarchy of Settlement Law, she eventually approached this Court in Writ Petition No,1216-R of 1976 directed against the order of Additional Settlement Commissioner. A learned Single Judge of this Court found that the property- in-dispute was Waqf and as regards the other property comprised in Khasra No,1504 "directed that the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner should proceed to dispose of the open plot measuring about 6 Kanals by first demarcating the Waqf property and then from the rest of the area to examine the case of the petitioner for three times the plinth area as directed by his superior, the Additional Settlement Commissioner,' and dispose of the rest of the property in accordance with law". Petition for Leave to Appeal from the order was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Thereupon, the appellant applied to the D.S.C. Lahore. Her case was dismissed on 14-6-1982 by him. Thereafter, on 18-9-1982, she applied to the District Judge for review of his order, dated 30- 5-1970 passed by his predecessor-in-office. The petition was dismissed in limine, on 13-12-1982 by learned District Judge. Thereafter, another petition under section 12(2) of Civil P.C. for setting aside of order, dated 30-5-1970 was filed before District Judge on 11-1-1983. It was also dismissed on 21-9- 1983. After having availed of and exhausted the above courses and remedies, petitioner once again took recourse to a petition under section 11 of Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979, and submitted a petition on 12-10-1983 before learned District Judge, Lahore. In the petition, Notification dated 7-10-1968 taking over the property in-dispute as Waqf for its administration, control and management was assailed. In the instant application, appellant denied to have filed an earlier application and, therefore, the order passed on it dismissing the same as barred by limitation was described as defective and non-est. Learned District Judge took notice of the bar of limitation and put it in preliminary issue as:--
1. Is the petition within time?OPP Appellant gave her evidence as P.W.1. Respondents were supported by the testimony of Muhammad Zubair Fatehi, Manager Auqaf, Sector 3, Lahore as R.W.1. On the consideration of the above evidence, petition was held barred by limitation and dismissed on 25- 11-1984. Against this decision, appellant came up here in appeal. On the strength of a case in Muhammad Ishaq v. Chief Administrator of Auqaf, Punjab PLD 1977 SC 639, appeal was admitted to hearing and eversince awaited adjudication by this Court.
' Learned counsel have been heard at full length. Existing records have been looked into. There was not much serious dispute on facts. Appellant did not claim interest in the Waqf property, except for its transfer to her as part of non-Muslim evacuee property. In the writ petition filed by her, A.S. Salam, J., had categorically found that it was a Muslim Waqf. A Petition for Leave to Appeal filed against his decision did not fructify. As for publication of Notification dated 7-10-1968 for taking over administration, control and management of Waqf property and its knowledge by the appellant, there could not be any doubt, except a mere delusion in the mind of the appellant hankering after transfer of the Waqf property. Her first petition in Constitutional jurisdiction was dismissed as far back as 14-2-1969 by a learned Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter, she launched different proceedings and went up to the supreme Court also. It was inconceivable that an unknown person was taking up this trouble, whereas its possible beneficiary was no other but the appellant herself. Impugned notification was published in the Gazette and the appellant was cognizant of it. Section 5 of the Limitation Act was inapplicable and inordinate delayed filing of the petition in face of earlier steps taken was not condonable on any earthly justification. Precedent case proceeded upon wholly distinguishable features and was not helpful to the point at issue in appeal. Petition giving rise to the appeal was filed on 12-10-1983, after an efflux of about fifteen years. Neither, the principle in section 14 of the Limitation Act was applicable nor that contained in section 18 of it applied to the facts. Proceedings in between were not prosecuted in good faith and bona fide. It went as mere colossal wastage of time by the appellant. She could not claim credit for and any benefit out of it. If one were to say a little openly, these were frivolous proceedings, so far as the challenge to vires of impugned notification was concerned. In my view, learned District Judge rightly found the petition hopelessly barred by limitation and there could be no exception to his view on it. Consequently, appeal is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.1,000 payable to respondent No,1 to be credited to the Auqaf Department.