SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, C.J.-- This appeal has been directed against the judgment 'of the High Court dated 26.6.2000 whereby the writ petition filed 'by the appellants, herein, was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that land measuring 35 kanals, 8 marlas under survey Nos. 1032, 1033 and 1034, situate in village Dhamni, tehsil Rawalakot, was allotted to Ghulam Qadir, respondent No. 3, in the year 1961. He obtained the proprietary rights of the aforesaid land in the year 1983. The appellants, herein, filed an application under sections 18- B and 43(6) of the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act for the cancellation of the allotment and provisional Proprietary Rights Transfer Orders passed in favour of respondent No. 3 on various grounds. The Custodian after hearing the parties dismissed the application holding that in the previous two rounds of litigation the allotments and Proprietary Rights Transfer Orders were challenged on the 'identical grounds but the same were held valid by the Custodian, High Court and the . Supreme Court; it was also observed that the application for the cancellation of the Proprietary Rights Transfer Order was filed after about 15 years of passing of the same and thus was hopelessly time-barred. The appellants, herein, filed a writ petition before the High Court but the same was also dismissed on the grounds on which the said application was dismissed by the Custodian. It is against the aforesaid dismissal of writ petition by the High Court that present appeal has been preferred.
3. Syed Nazir Hussain Kazmi, the learned counsel for the appellants , has argued that the High Court has committed an error in upholding the order of the Custodian. He has contended that in the previous litigation the appellants, herein, were not party and as such, the orders' passed by the Custodian and upheld by this Court are not binding on them (appellants). He has further contended that there is no limitation prescribed for an application like one which was filed before the Custodian and thus the Custodian and the High Court have committed an error in holding that the said application was hit by laches. He has further contended that in fact there is no bar of limitation to Custodian for the cancellation of an allotment under section 180-8; similarly no limitation has been prescribed for filing an application/review before the Custodian under section 43(6) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (as adapted in Azad Jammu and Kashmir). He has submitted that the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act was adapted in Azad Jammu and Kashmir through an Act known as the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Adaptation of Law Act, 1959 alongwith Rules, Notifications etc. Made under the Act but no rules were framed under the said Act prescribing period of limitation for filing a review under section 43(6) of the Act. The learned counsel has cited the following authorities in support of his contention.
4. In reply Khawaja Ghulam Qadir, respondent No. 3, has contended that the Custodian and the High Court have rightly held that appellants were not entitled to any relief because the allotment and proprietary rights were twice challenged upto this Court by different persons but the same were upheld inter alia on the ground that they challenged the Proprietary Rights Transfer. Order 8 years after the issuance of the same. He has submitted that in the present case the appellants have come after the expiry of 15 years of the same, their application/review was barred by limitation . He has contended that the appellants are the residents of the same village in which the property in dispute is situated. Thus, it is preposterous to seek the condonation of delay on the ground that they had no knowledge of the allotment and issuance of Proprietary Rights Transfer Order earlier. He has referred to the judgment titled Khawaja Ghulam Qadir and another v.
Custodian of Evacuee Property Azad Jammu and Kashmir (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1992, decided on 2.11.1992) which was passed in the proceedings against this very allotment and Proprietary Rights Transfer Orders wherein this Court has observed at page 9 of the judgment that review petition which was filed after 7 years against the allotment of Ghulam Qadir, the present respondent, was not open to challenge after such a long time; it was further observed that the same should have been challenged before Custodian within prescribed period of 30 days; the reliance was placed on a case reported as Mirza La! Hussain v. Custodian of Evacuee Property and others (1992 SCR 214).
5. In another case titled Muhammad Sharif and others v. Khawaja Ghulam Qadir and others (Civil PLA No. 60 of 1998, decided on 10.7.1998), wherein reference was made to the earlier judgment delivered in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1992, referred to above, and petition for leave to appeal was dismissed on the ground that the order of the allotment and proprietary rights made in favour of respondents could not be challenged after such a long time specially so when matter had been decided in the previous proceedings by this Court.
6. We have given due consideration to the arguments raised at bar by the learned counsel for the parties. The first point which needs resolution in the present case is as to whether an limitation is prescribed for filling a review petition to the Custodian or not. Under section 3 of Adoption of Laws Act, 1959 (Act I of 1959), the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957 with Rules, Notifications and Orders made thereunder was adapted in the State of Azad Jammu and Kashmir.
The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that expression ' made thereunder' in section 3 of the said Act implies that only those rules were adapted in the State which were framed under the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957 but, according to him , no rules were framed under the aforesaid Act and the rules-known as the Evacuee Property Rules 1950, framed under the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949, remained in force in Pakistan even after the enforcement of the said Act. He argued that, the Evacuee Prcperty Rules, 1.950 are not in force in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, and thus the limitation of 30 days prescribed under sub-rule
(3) of rule 17 for filing a review to the Custodian under the Evacuee Property Rules 1950 was not applicable in the State.
7. For resolving the controversy, it would be expedient to reproduce section 3 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Adaptation of Laws Act, 1959 as under:-- -3. The laws of Pakistan as contained in the Schedule to this Act and all rules, notifications and orders made. Thereunder and in force immediately before the commencement of this Act, are adapted and shall, as far as practicable, be in force in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir territory subject to the modifications as stated below." (Underlining is ours)
8. It is evident from the provision reproduced above that rules and notifications etc. Which were framed under the relevant statutes and were immediately in force in Pakistan before the Adaptation of Laws Act, 1959 were adapted. The expression, 'made thereunder and in force immediately before the commencement' implies that those rules were also adapted in Azad Jammu and Kashmir which were in force in Pakistan immediately before Adaptation of Laws Act, irrespective of the fact whether they were framed under the Pakistan Evacuee Property Act, 1959 or were framed under some previous evacuee law but were treated as rules under the said Act. It is clear from section 3 of Adaptation of Laws Act, 1959 that legislature intended that all rules which were harried under the Act or were in force in Pakistan immediately before the adaptation of said Act, would be deemed to be the rules adapted in Azad Jammu and Khasmir. It is well-settled principle of law that word ' or and word 'and' are interchangeable so as to give effect to the intention of the legislature. The reliance was made on the- following authorities in support of the said view:--
(1) Muhammad Hussain v. The Additional District Judge, Lahore and others (PLD 1966 (W.P.) Lah.
128).
(2) lshwar Singh Bindra and others v. State of U.P. (AIR 1968 SC 1450).
(3) The Food Inspector, Trichur Municipality, Trichur v. O.D. Paul and another (AIR 1965 Kerala 96).
(4) Muhammad Mumtazul Hassan v. A ta Ullah Mehar and others (PLD 1984 Lah. 27).
9. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Administration of Evacuee Property Rules, 1950 which prescribed limitation of 30 days for filing a review petition to the Custodian are not adapted in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, is fallacious and is hereby repelled. So far as the authorities referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants are concerned, only authority reported as Muhammad Ibrahim v. Custodian of Evacuee Property Azad Jammu and Kashmir Muzaffarabad and 2 others (PLJ 2000 SC (AJ&K) 340) has some indirect bearing on the question of limitation is case of a review to the Custodian. It may be observed that the point was not directly involved in the aforesaid judgment as to whether there is any limitation prescribed for filing a review petition or not. The observations in the said judgment to the effect that Custodian could suo motu cancel the allotment after he found the same illegal despite the fact that substantial period had elapsed after the order of allotment, cannot be interpreted to mean that there was no period of limitation prescribed for filing a review petition to Custodian under section 43(6) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. On the contrary, this Court in an unreported judgment titled Khawaja Ghulam Qadir v. Custodian of Evacuee Property Azad Jammu and Kashmir (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1992, decided on 2.11.1992), referred to above, has held that limitation for filing review petition to Custodian was 30 days from the date of its order and thus it was held that order of the High Court cancelling the allotment of Khawaja Ghulam Qadir and another was barred by limitation and consequently this Court set aside the judgment of the High Court.
10. So far as the question of condonation of delay in the instant case is concerned, the delay has not be condoned by the Custodian and he has dismissed the review petition as being time- barred. It is evident even from the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the appellants that discretion exercised by the Custodian one way or the other, is not ordinarily to be disturbed by this Court even otherwise the case of the appellants with regard to the absence of their knowledge cannot be accepted in view of the fact that they being residents of the same village and thus it is improbable that they were ignorant of the allotment or Proprietary Rights Transfer Order in favour of the respondents, especially so when there has been multiple litigation about the same before the Custodian which came upto this Court.
11. Before parting with the case it may be observed that. After proprietary rights are granted by the Custodian to the allottee, the allotment is merged in the Proprietary Rights Transfer Order and its separate entity is ended. Thus the only remedy for an aggrieved person after the grant of Proprietary Rights Transfer Order is by filing a review petition to the Custodian and not by way of an application under section 18-B of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act to him. However, if the proprietary rights have not yet been granted to an allottee, his allotment can be challenged even by making an application to the Custodian for which no period of limitation has been prescribed. In that case it cannot be said that such application is tantamount to a review petition because in such eventuality it cannot be said that he was reviewing his order; however when Custodian has once granted the Proprietary Rights Transfer Order, the same can be challenged by only filing a review to the Custodian within the prescribed period of limitation and while dealing with the legality of the said order, he can go into the question of validity allotment without any consideration for the limitation.