' MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 11-6-2002, whereby Writ Petition No,20286 of 1998 filed by the petitioner, was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Consolidation Scheme of Choa Mal Tehsil and District Gujrat was confirmed in February, 1988. The petitioner challenged the scheme in 1993 through an appeal before the Collector (Consohdation) Gujrat, but the same was dismissed on 7-6-1993 being barred by limitation. He then filed revision petition before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Gujranwala whichwas also dismissed vide his order dated 26-5-1996. He further challenged the order of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Gujranwala before the Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Lahore which also met the same fate vide order dated 5-3-1997 against which the review petition filed by him was also dismissed on 3-12-1997. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No,20286 of 1998 which was dismissed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore vide his judgment dated 11-6-2002, impugned herein.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity of hearing and thus was condemned unheard which was against the principles of natural justice and, equity. He further contended that the forums below did not advert to the merits of the case and dismissed appeal/revision on the sole ground of limitation.
4. We have heard thelearned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record of the case. The contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner was condemned unheard is misconceived as he himself challenged the scheme before the Consolidation forums after the lapse of more than five years and after giving him full opportunity of hearing, his appeal/revision were dismissed by, the competent forums. It is well-settled maxim that delay defeats equities and law helps the vigilant and not the indolent. Despite uncondonable delay in, seeking remedy before the competent forums, the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) and Member (Consolidation)
Board of Revenue, after considering the merits of the case found the case of the petitioner to be devoid of any merit.
5. In view of the above, no exception can be taken to the impugned, judgment of the High Court and the orders of forums below.
6. Consequently, this petition is dismissed and leave refused.