MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.-- Through the present writ petition, instituted on 23.2.1991., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.9.1987, passed by the learned Member Board of Revenue and the notice dated 22.9.1990, issued by the Collector, Sargodha.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this petition, as enumerated in the same, are that land comprising square No. 2, Killa No. 22, Square No. 4, Killas Nos. 3-A and 4-B (hereinafte referred to as the land in dispute) was leased out to the petitioner and the possession of the same was delivered to him under Section 10(4) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. It has been narrated in the writ petition that in. September, 1 987, the Member Board of Revenue passed an order, on an application find by one Sultan Khan, whereby sanction was accorded for leasing out the land in question to respondent No. 4. According to the petitioner, the land in dispute is under his cultivation and he has already paid the lease money for the year 1990-91, which lease money was duly accepted by the concerned authorities, It has been asserted in the writ petition that the petitioner has made improvements upon the land in -dispute and has invested huge amount; that the order dated.1 6.9.1 987 was not implemented and recently pursuant to the issuance of notice dated 22.9.1990 and apprehending his dis-possession at the hands of the respondents, the present writ petition has been find, In nutshell the stance of the petitioner is that as the lease money has been* deposited till June, 1991, therefore, the contract of lease is complete till June, 1991, and, therefore, the Government has no authority to eject him from the land in dispute.
3. In support of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the only contention that notice under Section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, which is mandatory, has not been served upon the petitioner and the land has been leased out to respondent No. 4 without hearing him and as such he has been condemned unheard.
4. On the other hand, the learned Law Officer and the learned counsel for respondent No. 4 have supported the order and vehemently argued that the petitioner, who has claimed the contract of lease upto June, 1991, is still sitting over the land in dispute without the payment of any rent to the Government and is reaping the benefits out of the land in question for the last more than 10 years without any legal justification.
5. Admittedly, the writ petition was find on 23.2.1991, wherein the order dated 16.9.1987, was challenged, meaning thereby that the said order passed by the Member Board of Revenue was challenged after the lapse of three years and five months. This delay in agitating the matter by the petitioner has not been explained in the writ petition. Although Limitation Act does not apply in filing the writ petition, yet admittedly the principle of laches is applicable to the writ petitions, In view of this inordinate delay in challenging the order, after the lapse of nearly three and a half years, reflects upon the bona fides of the petitioner, who has acquiesced over the matter and even after the receipt of the said order failed to agitate the same before any forum. The writ petition is hit by laches and deserves to be dismissed on this short ground alone.
6. Another aspect of the case, which cannot be ignored at this stage is that the only contention raised by the petitioner is, that no notice under Section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, was served. Surprisingly the petitioner has himself attached a notice dated 22.9.1990, under Section 24 of the said Act, as "Annexure C" to the writ petition and in the writ petition itself has challenged its validity and legality, It is a matter of common knowledge that to say that notice was not served and simultaneously to challenge the legality of the same notice are two self-destructive pleas, which cannot be allowed to be taken by a person, and that too in the writ petition. The petitioner is blowing hot and cold in the same breath, In view of above narrative, the argument raised by the learned counsel falls to the ground, as even according to his own admission a notice, at least, came to his knowledge, which has been impugned by him through the present writ petition.
7. Even according to the stance of the petitioner, as repeatedly mediated in the writ petition, that the lease period qua the land in dispute was uptill 31.3.1990, the lease money was deposited till June, 1991, and the contract of lease is complete till June, 1991, and that he cannot be evicted from the land in dispute before the said target date. The learned counsel of the petitioner has admitted that the petitioner is still in possession of the land in question and the order dated 16.9.1987, could- not be implemented on account of pendency of the titled writ petition. The lease period of the land in dispute, admittedly, expired in June, 1991, the petitioner is holding over the land in dispute even after the expiry of the lease period and is sitting over the land for the last more than 10 years without payment of any rent to the Government and even without renewal of the lease period from the competent authority. Learned counsel of the petitioner was unable to show that after the expiry of lease period, under what authority, the petitioner is in possession of the land in dispute.
8. Seeing from any angle the petitioner fails to make out any case within the contemplation of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and I am not inclined to exercise the powers under Article 199 of the Constitution, which are equitable and discretionary, in favour of the petitioner. The writ petition is devoid of force, has no merits and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs.