1. This petition has been field seeking the following reliefs: "It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that the order of respondent No.2 for cancellation of lease of the petitioner is illegal and without lawful authority.
2. To declare that order of respondent No.5 (Annexure 'G' to the petition) is unlawful and illegal as well as without lawful authority.
3. To direct the respondent No.3 to restore the possession of land of 25 acres of Naclass No.26, in Deh Rehri, Tappo Landhi, District Karachi.
4. To declare that respondents Nos.2 and 3 are liable for compensation to the petitioner for loss caused to the petitioner on account of unlawful cancellation of lease and unlawful occupation of land of the petitioner by the respondent No.3.
5. To declare that respondent No.4 have no lawful authority to give the land of the petitioner (land in question) to respondent No.3.
6. Any other relief/reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the petition."
7. The case of the petitioner is that he was allotted the lease of the land in dispute admeasuring 25 acres from out of Naclass No.26, in Deh Rehri, Tappo Landhi, District Karachi, originally in the year 1962 and by a subsequent order dated 22-3-1974 his lease was extended for another ten years.
8. According to the petitioner, he made successive use of bulldozer and tractors and developed the land in dispute and started cultivation of vegetable etc. He further contends that he then visited European and Far Eastern Countries in search of knowledge and latest techniques and technology and then he proceeded on a study tour of Japan in late 1979 and in his absence the respondent No.3 illegally and forcibly occupied his lands. On the return, the petitioner alleges that he was running from pillar to post, but to no avail and no personal hearing was given to him by any authority including respondent No.5. He has, however, placed on record the documents and also two orders of respondent No.5. In these circumstances, he has preferred this petition for seeking the above relief.
9. It is an admitted position that the lease granted to the petitioner was for ten years which expired in the year 1983. It is also an admitted position that the land of the petitioner, as alleged, was forcibly occupied in the year 1979, but no steps except for making applications to Revenue Officer was taken by the petitioner. The order passed by the Federal Ombudsman (respondent No.5) which is on record shows that the petitioner -.'!Er having learnt about the alleged forcible occupation had moved an application, whereon the Deputy Commissioner, Karachi-East, has submitted his report dated 5-7-1987. This report shows that the petitioner had not put the said land under cultivation as is required by the terms and conditions of grant of lease and, therefore, he would not be entitled to such lease. The report also shows that the respondent No.3 had needed the land and, therefore, the petitioner's lease was cancelled in the year 1982 and that land was granted to respondent No.3.
10. This report also shows that the petitioner had applied for grant of alternate land but in the circumstances it was found that the petitioner, not having put land under cultivation, would not be entitled to grant of such land and his prayer was rejected. The respondent N0.5, however, declined the prayer of the petitioner by an order passed on 21-12-1987 mainly for the reason that he has no jurisdiction. The petitioner has also placed on record another order passed by respondent No.5 on 6-6-1988, wherein also no relief was granted to the petitioner It may also be observed that the present case would not be maintainable for want of any legal right existing in favour of the petitioner, but also suffers from laches. In view of the above fact it is established that it was within the knowledge of the petitioner as far back as in the year 1979 or 1982 but yet no action was taken by the petitioner for seeking possession of the disputed property through a civil suit or any other such relief through competent forum. Mr. Iqbal has submitted that since the order of cancellation of the lease of the petitioner is without show-cause notice, therefore, the said order is non-existent in the eye of law and the question of laches would not arise. He has placed reliance on the case of Muhammad Haroon and another v. Federation of Pakistan 1991 M LD 397, a Division Bench judgment to which one of us (Abdul Rahim Kazi, J.) was a party. We are afraid that the dictum laid down in this judgment would not be applicable to the present case as the point involved in the above-cited case; is distinguishable from the present case. In the present case the cancellation of lease as is clear from the orders of the Deputy Commissioner as referred in the orders of respondent No.5 is on account of non-cultivation and the lessee remaining absent which are two conditions in the land grant policy and failure of the same could entail the cancellation of the lease. The other reliance placed by the learned counsel is on the case of Gul Muhammad and others v. The Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad 1993 CLC 1348, in this D.B. Judgment to which one of us (Abdul Rahim Kazi, J.) is also a party, the point considered as that cancellation of the name of the petitioner, in the Revenue record was made without show- cause notice to him, but he had continued to remain in possession and. Therefore, was unaware of such order. The third case referred to h` the learned counsel is of Riffatullah Khan Lodhi v. Mukhtar A.I Khan Lodhi and 12 others 1992 CLC 1117. This is a Single Bench judgment of which one of us (Abdul Rahim Kazi, J.) is the author. The facts of this case are also different. In this case, although the suit was filed nine years after acquiring knowledge of fraudulent transfer of land but it was held that the suit still was within time under Articles 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act which provided a limitation for 12 years and, therefore,. The plaint could not have been rejected under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C.