1. ' CHAUDHARY MUHAMMAD TAJ, J.---This appeal, by way of leave of the Court, is directed against the judgmert and order passedby the High Court on 15-2-2002, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed.
2. ' The facts forming the background of this appeal are the appellant filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Custodian of Evacuee Property, respondent No.13, whereby the review petition filed under section 18-B of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act was dismissed. It was claimed in the writ petition that the allotment of land measuring 44 Kanals, 14 Marlas made in the name of Shah Muhammad deceased, now survived by respondents was against law as his father Sultan Ali was allotted land measuring 60 Kanals, 6 Marlas in the year 1953 and the said Shah Muhammad his real son was also included in his allotment as member of the family as such he was not entitled to any further allotment. The writ petition was finally dismissed hence this appeal.
3. ' Mr. Muhammad Siddique Chaudhry, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that Shah Muhammad, deceased, was the real son of Sultan All in whose name the allotment of land measuring 60 Kanals, 6 Marlas was made in the year 1953 as refugee. The family of Sultan All consisted of eleven members including the said Shah Muhammad, deceased thereof, a further allotment of land measuring 44 Kanals, 14 Marlas could not be made in his name as such the review petition, for cancellation of the allotment under section 18-B of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act was made. The Custodian of Evacuee Property, respondent No.13, failed to appreciate the law and thus it was dismissed. A writ petition 'which was filed against the aforesaid order was also dismissed on illegal grounds.
4. ' Ch. Muhammad Bashir Advocate; who appeared on behalf of the respondents, argued that the appellant is estopped to challenge the allotment made in the name of respondents for the reasons that the land in dispute was initially allotted in the name of the appellant which was subsequently cancelled from his name and allotted in the name of Shah Muhammad, deceased, predecessor of respondents. The allotment was challenged by the appellant unsuccessfully before the Rehabilitation Authorities and thereafter before the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The review petition was finally dismissed by the Custodian of Evacuee Property in the year 1979. The appellant after a long period of 22 years again filed a review petition before the Custodian Evacuee Property which was dismissed and a writ petition challengingthe aforesaid order was also dismissed.
5. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. It is admitted between the parties that in the previous round of litigation the allotment in the name of the appellant was cancelled and the same was made in the name of Shah Muhammad, deceased, which was challenged unsuccessfully before the Rehabilitation Authorities by the appellant. The review petition was also filed before the Custodian of Evacuee Property which was also dismissed.
6. The learned counsel representing the appellant argued that in the previous round of litigation the point with regard to the allotment made in the name of father of the deceased ',respondent and he being included as a member of the family in his allotment was not raised therefore the appellant is not estopped to raise a new point in the present proceedings. It was forcefully argued by him that the allotment is illegal for being multiple allotment. It may be stated that the Custodian Evacuee Property in his order dated 19-6-2000 clearly mentioned that the aforesaid point was taken in the previous litigation therefore the appellant's claim that this point was not agitated in the earlier proceedings was not correct. It was also maintained in the order that the relevant respondent was not included in the allotment permit of his father. The High Court also dismissed the writ petition mainly on the ground that the appellant is estopped to challenge the allotment after conclusion of the earlier proceedings in the year 1979.
7. After giving a careful thought we are of the view that the appellant is estopped to challenge the point on which he failed to succeed in the earlier proceedings whereby he challenged the respondents' allotment particularly in the circumstances when the point on which the present review petition before the Custodian Evacuee Property and later on the writ petition was filed was also taken apart from the fact that the present proceedings were initiated after nearly twenty years. Reliance in this regard may also be placed on a case reported as Muhammad Hidayat Ullah v. Haji Allah Ditta (1982 CLC 1477) wherein the following observations were made:-- "10. In S. Sharif Ahmed Hashmi v. Chairman, Screening Committee, Lahore (1), it was held that a writ against a void order may be dismissed if the petitioner is estopped by his conduct from challenging it or if he has been guilty of laches. I, however, do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order."
8. ' In view of the above, the appeal is found to have no substance in it which, therefore, is dismissed.