' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---We propose to dispose of the above-mentioned three Civil Appeals by a common judgment as leave to appeal was granted in these cases through a consolidated order, dated 11th of June, 1997.
2. We will first take up Civil Appeal No,1130 of 1997 in which leave has been granted subject to the plea of limitation. The appeal is barred by 252 days. The appellant has sought condonation of delay of 252 days on the following grounds: "(4) That the suit of the petitioners was dismissed on 5th of July, 1994. Their appeal also failed on 1- 11-1994. The petitioners filed C.R. No,24 of 1995 before the learned High Court which was partly accepted on 10-3-1996. In its judgment in C.R. No,24 of 1995 the learned High Court was pleased to order that respondents Nos.1 and 2 were not entitled to 44 Kanals and 9 Marlas of land out of the resumed land.
(5) That respondents Nos.1 and 2 had filed W.P. No,1371 of 1994 on the ground that the Board of Revenue Punjab/Provincial Government had taken proceedings to review their orders contained in Memoranda dated 16-6-1987 and 26-7-1987 aforesaid and that their act of reviewing their earlier orders giving 44 Kanals, 9 Marlas of land out of resumed land to them be declared to be in the absence of lawful authority.
(6) That another Writ Petition No,1564 of 1995 filed by expropriated land owners of 76 Kanals 4 Marlas of land contending that on resumption of the said land they were entitled to its restoration.
(7) That all the three matters i.e, C.R. No,24 of 1995, W.P. No,1371 of 1994 and W.P. No,1564 of 1995 came up for hearing before his Lordship Mr. Justice Iftikhar Hussain Chaudhry on 10-3-1996. The main judgment was written in C.R. No,24 of 1995 whereby the order of resumption was upheld, however, holding that respondents Nos.1 and 2 were not entitled to 44 Kanals, 9 Marlas out of the resumed land. But while disposing of W.P. No,1371 of 1994 in the concluding portion of para. 8 of the judgment dated 10-3-1996 the learned .High Court recorded as under:-- ' 'However, it may be observed that the petitioner is entitled to receive that land which was originally owned by M/s. Wattan Cotton Mills and the respondents are bound to deliver the land which so far has not been handed over to it.'
(8) That although all the three matters aforesaid came up for hearing on 10th of Marchi, 1996 yet the orders were written much later and the files were returned to the Office on 7-7-1996.
(9) That it is submitted with profound respect that it was the order in C.R. No,24 of 1995 that was announced on 10-3-1996. The petitioners could not even in their wildest imagination think that respondents Nos.1 and 2 were held entitled to land inside the boundary walls of petitioners i.e, Wattan Woollen Mills (Pvt.) Ltd.
(10) That it was in the third week of December, 1996 that the petitioners came to know of the efforts made by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 to obtain possession through Tehsildar Rawalpindi of land inside the boundary walls of the petitioners' Mills. They obtained copies of the judgment dated 10- 3-1996 made in W.P. No,1371 of 1994.
(11) That the petitioners filed a petition under sections 151 and 152, C.P.C. Before the learned High Court seeking deletion of later part of para. 8 of the judgment made in W.P. No,1371 of 1994.
Simultaneously they also prayed for an interlocutory relief restraining the respondents Nos.1 and 2 from taking possession of any area inside Wattan Woollen Mills (Pvt.) Limited and the Tehsildar, Rawalpindi from delivering possession. The matter came up before his Lordship Mr. Justice Nazir Akhtar of the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench Rawalpindi on 6-1-1997 when he was not pleased to issue an interlocutory order prayed for in the petition aforesaid.
(12) That the learned Judge in Chamber announced the judgment in C.R. No,24 of 1995. The petitioners could not even think that in W.P. No,1371 of 1994 the land inside the premises of Wattan Woollen Mills (Pvt.) Ltd would be given to respondents Nos.1 and 2. It is submitted with profound respect that was not a considered order. The judgments in all the three matters were written later and files in the office were received on 7th July, 1996. It was for the first time in the third week of December, 1996 that the petitioners came to know of the order dated 10-3-1996. Even respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed an application in October, 1996 before the Tehsildar, Rawalpindi for delivery of possession.
(13) That the petitioners reasonably believe that even respondents Nos.1 and 2 did not know of the impugned order till they obtained copies. They had even filed a Civil Petition No,576-R 1996 before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan.
(14) That originally the petitioners were not impleaded in Writ Petition No,1371 of 1994. They were ordered to be impleaded in their application and the Office was directed to add their names in the Writ Petition No,1371 of 1994 but notwithstanding their names were not so added.
(15) That the delay in filing the present petition is not deliberate. It arose for reasons mentioned above."
3. The above grounds urged by the appellant in support of the plea for condonation of delay do not amount to a "sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act so as to entitle the appellant for condonation of delay of 252 days. The appellant was party to the proceedings before the High Court. The record shows that the judgment is dated 10-3-1996 while the application for grant of certified copy of judgment was made on 7-1-1997, which was granted on 11-1-1997. It is appellant's own contention that Writ Petition No,1371 of 1995 was heard by the learned Judge alongwith Writ Petition No,1564 of 1995 and C.R. No,14 of 1995 and judgment was announced on 10- 3-1996, but only in C.R. No,24 of 1995. The appellant has not disclosed the date on which judgment was announced in the other two matters heard with C.R. No,24 of 1995. In the absence of any explanation by appellant in this behalf, we are inclined to hold that the judgment was announced on the date shown in the judgment. The appellant, in the circumstances, could not plead ignorance about the orders passed by the High Court. The appellant contends that judgment was written in all the three cases on 7-7-1996. This explanation is of no help to the appellant as the limitation for filing petition for leave to appeal started from the date the judgment was announced. The fact that appellant allegedly came to know the judgment only in the third week of December, 1996 only established negligence on his part. We are accordingly not inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal which is dismissed as time-barred.
Civil Appeal No,1128 of 1997 and Civil Appeal No, 1129 of 1997: ' The admitted facts in the above appeals are that the Government of Punjab acquired 96 Kanals and 9 Marlas of land for M/s. Wattan Cotton Mills Ltd., on which the Mill was duly established and put into operation. It appears that M/s. Wattan Cotton Mills Ltd., later defaulted in payment of its income-tax dues with the result the assets and properties of M/s. Wattan Cotton Mills were put to auction by the Income Tax Department. M/s. Sattar Textile Mills Ltd., (appellant in C.A. No,1129 of 1997) purchased the assets and properties of M/s. Wattan Cotton Mills in the said auction. However, M/s. Sattar Textile Mills Ltd., were handed over possession of only 50 Kanals of land as against 96 Kanals, 9 Marlas, purchased by them in the auction. M/s. Sattar Textile Mills Ltd., accordingly, approached the Income Tax Department for handing over possession of the remaining 44 Kanals, 9 Marlas of land. It was then discovered that the remaining 44 Kanals 9 Marlas of land was in possession of M/s. Wattan Woollen Mills Ltd., a sister concern of M/s. Wattan Cotton Mills. The Income Tax Department accordingly, approached the Government of Punjab with the request that the purchaser M/s. Sattar Textile Mills Ltd., which is entitled to get possession of 44 Kanals, 9 Marlas of land, but the same could not be given to them as the land was in illegal possession of M/s. Wattan Woollen Mills Ltd., a sister concern of M/s. Wattan Cotton Mills, be given some other land by the Government of Punjab.
' At this stage it may be mentioned that after the establishment of the M/s. Wattan Cotton Mills and M/s. Wattan. Woollen Mills Ltd., the Government was approached for acquisition of further land for construction of a labour colony adjacent to the two mills. The Government of Punjab acquired 76 Kanals and 4 Marlas of land accordingly, for construction of a labour colony. It is an admitted position that no labour colony was constructed on the land which was later resumed by the Government of Punjab with the result the said 76 Kanals, 4 Marlas of land vested in the Government of Punjab. The Government of Punjab, it appears, in order to settle the above dispute agreed to deliver 44 Kanals, 9 Marlas of land to M/s. Sattar Textile Mills Ltd.., who purchased the assets of M/s. Wattan Cotton Mills, out of the land which was resumed by them. The learned counsel appearing for M/s. Sattar Textile Mills Ltd., made a statement before us that they will be satisfied if they are given 44 Kanals, 9 Marlas of land out of the land resumed by the Punjab Government which was acquired for the purposes of construction of labour colony instead of the land which formed part of the asset of M/s. Wattan Cotton Mills and is presently in illegal occupation of M/s. Wattan Woollen Mills Ltd. The learned counsel for M/s. Wattan Woollen Mills Ltd., and the M/s. Wattan Cotton Mills alao agreed to the above suggestion. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the Punjab Government to contest this appeal. However, Mr, Munir Peracha has appeared for the legal heirs of one Allah Ditta who was the original owner of 11 Kanals of land out of 76 Kanals and 4 Marlas which were acquired by the Punjab Government for the purposes of construction of labour colony and which was later resumed by the said Government. Mr. Munir Peracha very vehemently contended that as 76 Kanals of land acquired for the purposes of construction of labour colony of M/s. Wattan Woollen Mills Ltd., and M/s. Wattan Cotton Mills Ltd., but it was not utilized for that purposes, therefore, it reverted to its original owners and Punjab Government was not competent to transfer any land out of it to M/s. Sattar Textile Mills Ltd. The learned counsel in this connection referred to the decision of Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No,1564 of 1995 filed by late Allah Ditta. It is,not necessary to decide here the legality of the judgment in Writ Petition No,1564 of 1995 as the said judgment has not been challenged by the Government, of Punjab before this Court. It is however, conceded by Mr. Peracha that the subject-matter of that Writ Petition was only 11 Kanals of land.
The judgment in Writ Petition No,1564 of 1995 in our view, is therefore, operative only to the extent of the interest of Allah Ditta. It is admitted by all parties before us that after excluding 11 Kanals of land which was the subject-matter of Writ Petition No, 1564 of 1995, from 76 Kanals, 4 Marlas of land which was acquired for the purposes of construction of the labour colony and which was later resumed by the Punjab Government, the land still available with the Punjab Government is 65 Kanals and 4 Marlas. The claim of M/s. Sattar Textile Mills Ltd., can be easily satisfied out of the resumed land available with Punjab Government.
' The learned counsel for M/s. Wattan Cotton Mills Ltd., M/s. Wattan Woollen Mills Ltd., and M/s. Sattar Textile Mills Ltd., jointly stated before us that they will be satisfied if a direction is issued to the Government of Punjab to hand over 44 Kanals, 9 Marlas of land out of the remaining land available with them. The Punjab Government has all along shown its-willingness to hand over 44 Kanals and 9 Marlas of land to the purchaser M/s. Sattar Textile Mills Ltd., out of 76 Kanals of land which was acquired for the purpose of construction of labour colony and which was later resumed by the Punjab Government. We, accordingly, mpdify the order passed by the High Court to the extent that out of the remaining 65 Kanals of land which is still vesting with the Punjab Government M/s. Sattar Textile Mills Ltd., be given 44 Kanals, 9 Marlas of land. The two appeals are disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.