MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, J.--- The facts giving arise to this Constitutional petition are that allegedly land measuring 5 kanals, 10 marlas bearing Khasra No. 390/1 situate in the revenue estate of village Dhoke Talian Qasbati, Rawalpindi was allotted to respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in 1960-61 vide Khata RL-II No. 21 against Entitlement Certificate issued in 1959. This allotment was not given effect to, in the revenue record and the land remained in the name of Central Government. The land in question was required for construction of the hospital and the sanction of the sale for the same was granted by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Department on 30.4.1971, to Health Department (respondent No. 5). The respondents Nos. 3 and 4 submitted various applications for implementation of the allotment in the revenue record but of no effect. Eventually respondents Nos.
3 and 4 filed an appeal before the Addl. Commissioner (Revenue) Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi which was accepted vide order dated 23.3.1982. Notwithstanding the order of the Addl.
Commissioner, allegedly entries were not made in the revenue record. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 made an application before Member Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner for implementation of the aforesaid order of the Addl. Commissioner but the same was declined by the Board of Revenue. Feeling aggrieved respondents Nos. 3 and 4 filed Writ Petition No. 18R/84 for seeking direction for implementation of the allotment order. The writ petition was accepted vide order dated 13.12.1993 and the case was remanded to the Member Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore directing decide the same after providing full opportunity to the parties. Respondent No. 1, after hearing both the parties vide his order dated 5.8.1996 ordered as under:- "that the applicants should be allotted any other urban evacuee land available anywhere in the Province against their pending claim of 90 urban units jointly or separately in two equal share. As the case has been pending since prior to 1973, the notification declaring the urban evacuee land as building sites will not be applicable to the case of the applicants."
Subsequently, an order was passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner(G)/Deputy Settlement Commissioner, 'Rawalpindi, on 3.3.1999, implementing the order dated 5.8.1996 passed by respondent No. 1.
2. The petitioner (Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore), has challenged the order passed by his predecessor-in-office-respondent No. 1 in this Constitutional petition on the ground that the order dated 5.8.1996 allowing allotment in favour of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 against 90 urban units, is without jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that respondent No. 1 being a notified officer had no jurisdiction to order allotment against the pending 90 urban units.
3. This Constitutional petition is misconceived and merits dismissal on more than one ground. The petitioner/Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner, is not an aggrieved person and has no 'locus standi . The honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case titled "Ardeshir Cowasjee and 10 others Vs. Karachi Building Control Authority (KMC), Karachi and 4 others (1999 SCM R 2883), held that" it was not necessary that petitioner should have a right in the strict sense, but it was enough if he discloses that he had a personal interest in the performance of the legal duty, which if not performed or performed in a manner not permitted by law, would result in the loss of some personal benefit or advantage or curtailment of a privilege in liberty or franchise. "I have no manner of doubt in my mind that the petitioner is not an aggrieved person.
4. Even otherwise, the petitioner is bound by the order passed by his predecEssor-in-office. If the present petition is entertained, it will ope a floodgate of litigation. The petitioner cannot reopen the case on fresh consideration of the matter. Reliance pis placed on "Dr. M.S. Qureshi Vs. West Pakistan Government and another (PLD 1966 (W.P.) Lah. 825), wherein it was held-- "In a case in which ,after Government Officials duly competent and duly authorised in that behalf, have arrived honestly at one decision, there successors-in office, after the decision has been acted upon and is in effective operation cannot purport to enter upon a reconsideration of the matter and to arrive at another and totally different decision."
This petition has been filed after four years and one month which suffers from laches'. No reason has been given for filing the writ petition after such a delay.
5. The petitioner is a public functionary and must act honestly, justly, fairly and without any fear in performing his duties. He must act in a benevolent manner and must not bring in his personal feelings in the performance of his quasi-judicial functions. The respondents have been clamouring since 1961 for the implementation of the orders and if any property is allotted against their pending 90 urban units, the petitioner or for that matter any person is not likely to suffer any loss. The units have not been allotted against a pending claim but the allotment order has been implemented.
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that this petition has no merit and the same is dismissed in limine.