ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---Lahore Development Authority seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of Lahore High Court dated .7-4-1996 dismissing its Revision Petition (C.R. 2216-D of 1995) filed against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below as barred by the.
2. Facts relevant for the disposal of this petition. Briefly stated, are that the petitioner acquired 66 Kanals, 9 Marlas of land belonging to Muhammad Rashid respondent and his co-plaintiffs together with some other land owned by different landowners situate in the revenue estate of Mohlanwal, Chuhang and Panj Grain, Mauza Juliana. Tehsil and District Lahore for the purpose of public graveyard scheme framed by it The landowners were given to understand that they will be exempted plots in M.A. Jauhar Town Scheme to the extent of 30 per cent. Of their holdings acquired for the public graveyard. This was vide letter dated 6-12-1981 (Exh.P-4) addressed by the Director, Land Development, L.D.A. To the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore. Land Acquisition Collector of Lahore Development Authority announced his award on 15-6-1985 which, to, contained the undertaking that the landowners shall be allotted exempted plots to the extent of 30 per cent. Of their holdings as permissible under the policy of the petitioner. After about five years, the Director, Land Development, by his letter dated 29-4-1986 (Exh.P-3) informed the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore that the. Commitment regarding the exempted plots in M.A. Jauhar Town was earlier made without the approval of the competent Authority and that L.D.A. Has now framed the exemption policy according to which the landowners will be exempted plots in the proposed Housing Scheme at Mohlanwal, in their own lands acquired by L.D.A.
3. Feeling aggrieved, Muhammad Rashid respondent alongwith 5 others filed a suit against the petitioner for a declaration that they were entitled to get plots in M.A. Jauhar Town Scheme to the extent of 30 per cent. Of their land acquired by the petitioner for public graveyard in terms of its own undertakings, representations and .Decisions at the the of acquisition and that the petitioner was not entitled to revise the previous scheme or to deny allotment of plots in M.A. Jauhar Town Scheme to the plaintiffs.. Consequential relief by way of permanent injunction was also sought by the plaintiffs for restraining the petitioner from revising Public Graveyard Scheme so as to provide for any residential colony within the land acquired for graveyard and modifying the original exemption policy. It was further prayed by the plaintiffs that mandatory injunction be issued to the petitioner to provide residential plots to them in M.A. Jauhar Town Scheme to the extent of 30 per cent. Of their land acquired for public graveyard.
4. Petitioner resisted the suit by filing a written statement contending; inter alia, that the undertaking given by the Director, Land Development was without the approval of the competent Authority. It was further pleaded 'that according to the policy of the petitioner, the exemptees are given plots in the same scheme for which their land has been acquired and as such, the plaintiffs could not claim to be entitled to exempted plots in M.A. Jauhar Town Scheme. Learned trial Court after framing necessary issues. Arising from the pleadings of the parties and recording the evidence led by them, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs holding that the proceedings for acquisition of land were initiated by the petitioner by giving an assurance to the landowners to grant them exempted plots in Jauhar Town. Petitioner, however, tried to resile from the commitment before the announcement of award "but the award was announced in the meantime. " Petitioner, it was held, was not entitled to revise or modify the exemption policy to the extent of the plaintiffs. It was observed by the learned trial Court "the assertion of plaintiffs appears to be convincing that they did not challenge the award or proceedings in view of the above-referred commitment. " Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment, dated 2-10-1994 upholding the findings of the trial Court with the observation "I am of the considered view that the appellant is bound by its commitment made vide letter dated 6-12-1981 Exh. P-4 and the appellant is bound to award exempted plots up to 30% of the land acquired from the respondents from Muhammad Ali Jauhar Scheme. The appellant has no right to resile from the commitment.
The appellant is not entitled to amend or rescind the commitment made by the appellant because the respondents had acted upon it Ad the resiling of appellant from its commitment after about five years is against law. The matter had reached upto 'no turn' point and the lands of the respondents were acquired with the .Condition that they will be awarded exempted plots upto the extent of 30% of their land from Muhammad Ali Jauhar Town Scheme and not from any other Scheme. The subsequent letter of the appellant dated 29-4-1986 Exh. P.5 is illegal, void, ab initio, mala fide, without jurisdiction, arbitrary, ineffective and inoperative upon the rights of the respondent. The learned trial Court has rightly decreed the suit filed by the respondents in their favour".
5. Revision petition filed by the petitioner in the High Court has been dismissed as the-barred by a learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment.
6. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition has not addressed us on the dismissal of the revision petition on the ground of limitation. On perusal of the impugned judgment, however, we find that dismissal of the revision petition as the-barred is unexceptionable. Revision petition was originally filed in the High Court on 29-12-1994. The Deputy Registrar (Judicial) raised certain objections and returned the revision petition on 4-1-1995 with the direction to remove the objections within seven days. Rev*'on petition was, however, re-filed by the petitioner on 10-10-1995.
Office raised an objection that the revision petition when re-filed had become the-barred by 247 days and the petitioner was, therefore, asked to file an application for condonation of delay and it was then that the petitioner moved an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. By that the, the revision petition, as observed by the learned Judge, had become barred by 300 days. Be that as it may, the delay was sought to be condoned on to grounds, viz that due to the change of office, the case file got mixed up in the heap of other files and could not be traced despite best efforts of the officials and the law as to limitation for filing the revision petition was misconstrued by the petitioner as previously no limitation was prescribed therefor. The application was supported by an affidavit of Deputy Director (Legal)/General Attorney of the petitioner. Both the grounds were repelled by the learned Judge holding that the objections raised by the Deputy Registrar of the High Court were not of such a nature as would require recourse to the office of the petitioner and in any case, it was not believable that the file could not be located for about a year. Note -was also taken of the fact that no affidavit of the officials who were stated to have made the efforts to locate the file was placed on record nor was it shown as to what action was taken against the officials who failed in the discharge of their duties in locating the file. With respect to the second ground, it has been observed by the learned Judge that ignorance of law is no excuse and in this case, the change in law regarding the limitation for filing a revision petition was known to all the members of legal profession. The circumstances pointed out by the learned Judge quite clearly show that the petitioner's officials acted with gross negligence in re-filing the revision petition. They took almost one year in doing what they were required to do in seven days and the explanation offered by them for this inordinate delay has not been found to be convincing by the learned Judge and rightly so in our view. It has not been denied that the High Court Rules and Orders empowered the Deputy Registrar to raise the objections and fix the the for removing the same. That being so, revision petition re-filed long after the expiry of the period specified by the office was rightly dismissed as the-barred. Even on merits, the view taken by the to Courts below consequent upon the--- findings recorded by them on the basis of the admitted documentary evidence was not open to any legitimate exception. '
7 Upshot of the above discussion is that we find no good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court and the judgments of the Courts below. This petition is accordingly dismissed.