' Briefly stated the facts are that land measuring 98 Kanals described fully in paragraph 1 of writ petition situated in Mauza Ramli, Tehsil Hasilpur, District Bahawalpur, being evacuee property, vested in Evacuee Trust Property Board. The abovementioned land alongwith other land had originally been given on lease to one Sheikh Noor Muhammad and on whose request, it was subsequently transferred in the name of his sons, wife and daughters who are respondents Nos.2 to 11 in the instant writ petition. After enforcement of Scheme for lease of Evacuee Trust Agricultural Land in 1974, most of the land including land in dispute was resumed from the name of respondents Nos.2 to 11 by the Evacuee Trust Property Board and was directed to be leased out in lots through public auction by order dated 18-54980. In pursuance of the aforementioned decision, the land in dispute alongwith other land was put to auction on three years' lease by the Assistant Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property Board, Bahawalpur, on 9-6-1980. The petitioner being the highest bidder of land in dispute secured the said bid at the rate of Rs,1,100 per acre vide order dated 9-6-1980 (Annexure A'). The petitioner then deposited a sum of Rs,12,750 being lease money vide Bank challan dated 11-6-1980. Respondents Nos.2 to 11 felt aggrieved of the auction and challenged the same by filing a writ petition which was dismissed. Due to pendency of writ petition, the possession of land could not be handed over to the petitioner. However, after the dismissal of writ petition, the Assistant Administrator issued order for the delivery of possession of land in dispute to the petitioner vide order dated 3-1-1982. Subsequently, respondents Nos.2 to 11 filed an intra-Court appeal. Hence, the delivery of possession was again postponed. The said intra-Court appeal (I.C.A.) was ultimately withdrawn on 15-1-1983. After withdrawing the I.C.A., respondents Nos.2 to 11 filed a revision before respondent No,1 and as such continued to enjoy the possession of land in suit. The revision so filed was accepted by respondent No,1 vide order dated 21-10-1986 and consequently lease of the entire land including the land in dispute was restored in favour of respondents Nos.2 to 11 vide order dated 21-10-1986 Annexure 'D'. Since the petitioner had not been impleaded a party in the revision, so no notice was issued to him. Consequently, the petitioner remained unaware of the impugned order referred above. As soon as he came to know about the said order dated 21-1-1986, he filed the instant writ petition challenging the said order on the grounds that the same had been passed without impleading him as party and affording an opportunity of being heard to him, that the same had been passed by respondent No,1 who had no jurisdiction to pass that order, that the said revision petition was barred by time having been filed after a period of three years. It was, thus, prayed that order dated 21-10-1986 be declared illegal and void to the extent of land comprising in Lot No,3 measuring 98 Kanals described fully in letter dated 3-1-1982.
2. Respondents Nos.2 to 11 contested the writ petition and filed written statement which has been brought on record. Respondent No,1 has also been represented by his learned counsel. '
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that admittedly, the land in dispute as well as of her land was resumed by the Evacuee Trust Property Board vide order dated 18-5-1980 and then the same was put to auction, that as a result of auction held on 9-6-1980, it was secured by the petitioner being the highest bidder, that order dated 18-5-1980 was challenged by respondents Nos.2 to 11 in writ petition which was dismissed and so also its I.C.A. Was withdrawn as is evident from the facts narrated above, that the instant impugned order dated 21-10-1986 has also been passed on the basis of a revision petition filed before the Secretary to the Government of 'Pakistan, Ministry of Religious Affairs and Minorities Affairs, Islamabad, who, in the exercise of his revisional jurisdiction, has set the order dated 18-5-1980, that order dated 18-5-1980 could not be challenged in revision which can be filed under section 17 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 which reads as follows:- "1. Revision.---The Federal Government may at any time, of its own motion or otherwise, call for the record of any case or proceedings under this Act which is pending or in which the Chairman, an Administrator, a Deputy Administrator or an Assistant Administrator has passed an order, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to . The correctness, legality or propriety of such an order, and may pass such order in relating thereto as the Federal Government thinks fit: ' Provided that the record of any case or proceedings in which the Chairman, an Administrator, a Deputy Administrator or an Assistant Administrator has passed an order shall not be called for under this section on the application of any aggrieved person made after the expiration of fifteen days from the date of such order."
5. He argued that it is evident from the perusal of section 17 (ibid) that the Federal Government may at any time of its own motion or otherwise call for the record of any case or proceedings under this Act, which is pending or in which the Chairman, an Administrator, a Deputy Administrator or an Assistant Administrator has passed an order for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such in order and pass such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit. It is, thus, 'clear that revision can only be filed against the order of authorities referred in this section, i,e, 17 (ibid). Now it is to be seen if the revision petition entertained by the Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs and Minorities Affairs, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, could be entertained by him or not. A perusal of order dated 18-5-1980 (which is subject-matter of order dated 21-10-1986) reveals that the same has been passed by the Federal Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Religious Affairs and Minorities Affairs and the said order has not been passed either by a Chairman, an Administrator, a Deputy Administrator or an Assistant Administrator. Thus, the order dated 18-5-1980 having been passed by the Federal Government could not be revised by the Federal Government itself by invoking the provisions of section 17 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975. The learned counsel, thus, submitted that even on this short score, the order dated 21-10-1986 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He next argued that the impugned order dated 21-10-1986 has been passed without impleading him a party or issuing any notice to him. He argued that a revision petition under section 17 of the Act (XIII of 1975) could be filed within a period of fifteen days of the said order as required under section 17 of the said Act but the instant case, this order, dated 18-5-1980 was assailed on 23-1-1984. Thus, even on this score, the said order could not be passed.
6. Conversely the stand of learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 to 11 is that instant kit petition suffers from laches as it has been filed on 25-3-1989 challenging the order dated 21-10-1986. As such it has been filed after a period of 2/1-2 years and suffers from laches, that petitioner was allotted land for three years vide auction dated 9-6-1980 which expired on 8-6-1983. As such, the petitioner has no locus standi to file the instant writ petition, that no revision can be filed against order dated 21-10-1986 passed by the Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs, as is evident from section 17 which only provides an appeal and not revision. He, thus, submitted that instant writ petition be dismissed.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No,1 has also supported the order, dated 21-10-1986 and asserted that the same has been passed in the interest of justice and that there is none in the field who has any locus standi to challenge the said order.
8. The only point which requires determination in this writ petition is if the order, dated 21-10-1986 has been passed in accordance with law or not. Admittedly, the order, dated 21-10-1986 has been passed by the Secretary, Ministry of Religious a9d Minorities Affairs, Government of Pakistan, in the exercise of his revisional jurisdiction. The revisional jurisdiction vests vide section 17 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975, which has been reproduced above. A perusal of said section reveals that revision petition can only be filed with the Federal Government against the order of Chairman, an Administrator, Deputy Administrator or an Assistant Administrator of the Evacuee Trust Property Board. No revision can be filed against the order passed by the Federal Government itself. A perusal of order, dated 18-5-1980 (which is subject- matter of revision petition filed with the Secretary of the Ministry of Religious and Minorities Affairs) reveals that the said order, i,e,, 18-5-1980 has been passed by the Federal Government in the Ministry of Religious Affairs and Minorities Affairs and has simply been communicated to the Assistant Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property Board, Bahawalpur, by the Deputy Secretary- General of the Department. Thus, in no way the order, dated 18-5-1980 can be said to have passed by a Chairman, a Deputy Administrator or an Assistant Administrator of the Evacuee Trust Property Board and as such could be revised by exercising the power vested in respondent No,1 vide section 17 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975. It is also fact that order, dated 18-5-1980 has been challenged by filing a revision petition on 23-1-1984 which under the law could only be filed within fifteen days of the order. Thus, even on this score, the said order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The objection of the learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 to 11 that writ petition has been filed after a period of 2-1/2 years and as such suffers from laches has got no legal force, as, admittedly, the order, dated 21-10-1986 has been passed behind the back of the petitioner. A perusal of order, dated 21-10-1986 reveals that neither the petitioner was impleaded a party nor he was afforded an opportunity of being heard.
9. It may also be mentioned here that admittedly the, petitioner was granted lease rights for about three years from 9-6-1980 to 8-6-1983 and the said period stands expired. It does not mean that an illegal can be allowed to hold the filed.
10. Consequently writ petition is accepted and order, dated 21-10-1986 is hereby set aside. .The writ petitioner if so chooses can approach the appropriate forum for the redressal of his grievances.