' Through this Constitutional petition, petitioners have prayed that "transfer orders passed by the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner, whereby portions of house in possession of petitioners were transferred to. Respondents Nos.1 to 4 and predecessor-ininterest of respondents Nos.5 and 6 be declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal consequence and portions in possession of the petitioners be ordered to be transferred to them".
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners clarified that petitioners have challenged order, dated 26-5- 1967, whereby transfer in favour of respondents was kept intact while rejecting forms of the petitioners. It was also contended that order dated 21-2-1975 passed by Deputy Settlement Commissioner has also been challenged as revised forms of the petitioners under RSS VIII were held to be incompetent on the basis that property, was not available for allotment after issuance of PTD in favour of the respondents.
3. Confronted with the question of unexplained laches, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that order dated 26-5-1967 passed by Deputy Settlement Commissioner was obtained by some persons fraudulently because none of the petitioners had engaged a counsel or authorized any other person to appear before Deputy Settlement Commissioner and that power of attorney (R6) of Hakim Ali is also dubious. However, no explanation could be offered for not challenging within time order dated 21-2-1975 passed by Deputy Settlement Commissioner rejecting revised forms of the petitioner as incompetent.
4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not deny that order, dated 26-5-1967 was passed against the petitioners rejecting their forms and upholding allotment of the property in question to respondents. Though learned counsel for the petitioners states that the counsel who appeared for the petitioners and the other persons appearing for the petitioners, had no authority, yet it has not been denied that forms of the petitioners were rejected through this order. Even on specific question as to the knowledge of the petitioners regarding rejection of their forms, learned counsel for the petitioners had no answer. It is thus presumed that petitioners were throughout aware of the proceedings and they actively participated therein. After impugned order, dated 26- 5-1967 was passed against the petitioners, they choose not to challenge the same any further before any authority and to avail of their remedies against the said order. Even if, petitioners had - no knowledge when the order was passed, it was open to the petitioners to ' challenge order, dated 26-5-1967 after obtaining knowledge of the same. Absence of any challenge thereto attaches finality to order dated 26-5-1967 and petitioners are debarred under law to assail the same in the present writ petition filed in 1987 without any explanation for indolence, neglect and inaction of the petitioners and the consequent delay.
5. Another intriguing fact appearing from the record is that petitioners filed revised forms after rejection of their forms on 26-5-1967. Revised forms were rejected by Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Jhelum by order dated 21-2-1975 by holding the same as incompetent on the premise that the property was not available for allotment for having been allotted to the respondents upon issuance .Of PTD. Filing of revised forms on the basis of alleged possession of part of the property confirms the fact that petitioners had knowledge of rejection of their earlier form on 26-5-1967. Furthermore, since the petitioners had not paid any of the public dues or the rent, therefore, their possession of the part of the property became unlawful and disentitled the petitioners to any allotment of the property in question. Furthermore, upon issuance of PTD to the respondents, the C property in question obviously went out of the compensation and was not available for allotment.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners had candidly and frankly admitted that even this order dated 21-2-1975 was not challenged by the petitioners through any . Appeal, revision or otherwise before any Court, forum or authority. As such, this order also became final in absence of any attack by the petitioners. The rights of the parties thus became finally determined and adjudicated upon.
Petitioners were, therefore, debarred from re-opening the matter in any manner whatsoever.
Despite abandoning the right to challenge the above said order, petitioners again tried to re-open the matter by making an application dated 30-11-1985 to the same authority i,e, Deputy Settlement Commissioner/Deputy Administrator, Jhelum assailing some remand order, dated 17-10-1963. On the back of this application, Settlement Clerk on 15-1-1986, made the following report:- "The case stands disposed of vide D.S.C. Jhelum's order dated 21-2-1975. No further action is warranted."
7. Since the application was filed on administrative side, therefore, petitioners were ordered to be informed on 15-1-1986 by DA (R-P). Wazir Ahmad, petitioner received this above said report and admittedly affixed his signature thereupon, but failed to challenge the same anywhere. Petitioners, however, despite abandoning their remedies against the above said orders of allotment and issuance of PTD to respondents and rejection of their forms, re-agitated the matter through the present writ petition in February, 1987. This petition against orders dated 26-5-1967, 21-2-1975 and 15-1-1986 was obviously hit by principles of 'aches because of the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the petition and also because of inaction, indolence, waiver and abandonment of right by the petitioners to actively pursue their remedies before appropriate forums against PTD regarding the said property to the respondents or to seek allotment of the same in their favour.
Petitioners' inaction, indolence, waiver and abandonment of right vested valuable rights in the respondents, who were duly, legally and properly issued PTD by the relevant authorities of exclusive jurisdiction, therefore, the orders became final in absence of any challenge by the petitioner.