This be considered as admitted case.
2. The instant civil revision challenges the judgment and decree dated 3-7-1997 passed by the learned lower Appellate Court being contrary to law and facts of the case.
3. The only argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the learned Courts below have not considered that mortgagee rights could not be equated with ownership rights unless a decision to this effect is made by the Court of competent jurisdiction and no decree has been passed in favour of the respondent regarding ownership of the suit property.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the instant civil revision is time---barred by 122 days. No substantial reasons have been shown for filing the time-barred revision petition. He also argued that section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the revision petition. He has relied on Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rais Pir Ahmad Khan (1981 SCM R 37) and Allah Dino and another v.
Muhammad Shah and others (2001 SCM R 286). He further submitted that respondents proprietary rights were wrongly disturbed by a suo motu review by the Member, Board of Revenue dated 6-7- 1991. The respondent filed a suit for declaration challenging the order dated 6-7-1991 passed by the learned Member (Colonies) and the letter dated 29-1-1994 being illegal, without jurisdiction and passed in absence of the plaintiffs on the basis that they were the oustees from the Terbela Dam Oustees Scheme as mortgagees for a long period and were in cultivating possession of the properties since the time of their auctioners. The original owners were least concerned and only the occupants under cultivation and in possession being mortgagees were effected and were entitled for compensation, therefore, the Central and Provincial Government amended paragraph 7 of the scheme and give entitlement of compensation and alternative allotment to the plaintiffs. Both the learned Courts below have concurrently held that the impugned order as well as the impugned letter are passed without jurisdiction and do not affect the petitioners' rights or interest. Against these concurrent findings the department has filed an expressly time-barred revision petition, which is liable to be dismissed.
5.1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to meet the preliminary objection in respect of this revision petition being time-barred showing substantial cause for non-filing of the civil revision. He has only submitted that time was spent in getting approval and deciding whether civil revision should be filed or not while settled law in respect of the limitation is that each day is to be explained and there must be cogent and substantial p reasons to condone the delay as the delay of filing the revision. Petition gives a right of dismissal to the adverse party. Even the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are clear in this respect. The later judgment does not allow the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in respect of filing of civil revision. On this score the instant civil revision is dismissed being time-barred.
6. Even the learned counsel for the petitioner has not shown this Court any material irregularity or an error of jurisdiction while deciding the issues both the learned Courts below give issue-were findings and while discussing the documentary as well as oral evidence or record and the scheme pertaining to the Terbela Dam Oustees decided the case in favour of the plaintiff/respondent.
7. I have also perused the document Exh.P.1 Letter No.RST/REV-1(4)-68-852 dated 16-5-1968 and the later letters issued by the Precinct Director, Resettlement Organization Terbela Dam which show that it was noted by the authorities that oustees of Terbela Dam were de facto owners and not dejure and these were in the villages Pehur and Bara. A recommendation which was later on envisaged in the letter was made by the Project Director that, the human aspect of these oustees should be considered and those are ousted would be eligible for the grant of alternative land and those who are owners should be paid the cash compensation. Later on it was held in the minutes of the meeting that the tenants of village Pehur and Bara should be considered eligible for the grant of alternative land and the terms and conditions already approved for every eligible of the owner of this land should be compensated through cash and could not be considered for the grant of alternative land on that account. In the instant case a chit was issued to Muhammad Din and alternative land was granted to him, later on it was alienated by him to the other respondents after getting proprietary rights.
8. Board of Revenue is empowered to resume land in respect of which proprietary rights had been acquired by fraud or misrepresentation or on account of ineligibility of a lessee. Order tainted with fraud or misrepresentation could not be allowed to attain finality. But grant of tenancy which is not in accordance with statement of conditions under section 10 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 so as to enable the grantee to acquire proprietary rights in land, suo motu action taken by the Member, Board of Revenue under section 30(2)(b) the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 is not justified without hearing the respondents as the provisions of section 30(2)(b) do not give open-handed authority to Board of Revenue to set aside a deed at any time without determining the eligibility of the allottee giving him time of hearing and also keeping in view the terms and conditions of the C scheme under which allottee is holding the proprietary rights when the proprietary rights are not tainted with fraud or misrepresentation, "The State v. Hashim through Muhammad Amir and others" (1996 M LD 258). Even the provisions of section 20(2)(b) show that if the Member, Board of Revenue comes to the conclusion that allottee was not eligible to such rights from any reason whatsoever it is notwithstanding the acquisition of proprietary rights by such person in such land or the terms and conditions of any agreement with or rules issued by the Provincial Government and without prejudice to any other liability or penalty to which such person may be liable under any law for the time being in force, the Board .Of Revenue may after giving such persons a reasonable opportunity of showing cause pass an order resuming the land in respect of which proprietary rights have been acquired or reduce the area of such land or pass such order as it may deem fit.
9. Undoubtedly the proprietary rights obtained by the Terbela Dam Oustees was not tainted with fraud or mis-representation and it could not have been resumed by the Member, Board of Revenue in a suo motu exercise under section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, therefore, the judgments of the learned Courts below on this point are well-reasoned, passed according to law and evidence on record as Exhs. P.1 to P.18 show that Terbela Dam Oustee in continuous possession and occupation of the disputed property which was resumed from him for the purpose of Terbela Dam as mortgagee for a long time and no owner in this respect came forward.
10. Keeping in view all the above-said facts the instant civil revision being time--barred as well as having no substance on merits is dismissed.
H.B.T./P-127/L