' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---By this common judgment we propose to decide both these petitions involving common questions of law and facts.
2. These petitions are directed against judgment dated 28-2-2001 whereby Constitution Petitions Nos.6181 of 1995 and 2316 of 1994 have been dismissed.
3. Ahmed Khan deceased, predecessor-in-interest, of the petitioners was allotted land in dispute on 14-12-1960 under Bara Reclamation Scheme. According to the terms and conditions of the said scheme he was required to personally cultivate the land and to be present in the village. On 20-8- 1966, the Collector after finding that the petitioner was in breech of the said condition i.e, did not cultivate the land from the very beginning, resumed the said land. It was challenged by said Malik Ahmad Khan deceased by filing an appeal before the Commissioner, which was accepted through order dated 7-2-1967 and the case was remanded to the Collector to hold further inquiry. It was again held that allottee was in breech of the conditions and that Fazal Din and Ahmed Din had been cultivating the land and had claimed proprietary rights regarding the land, it was resumed from him and Fazal Din and Ahmed Din were allowed to cultivate the same vide order dated 20-7- 1971. This order was challenged by Malik Ahmad Khan before the Commissionerby filing an appeal which was accepted through order dated 27-6-1983. This order was challenged by Fazal Din and Ahmed Din in revision before the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue., which was accepted through order dated 17-1-1984 with the observations that the order passed by the Commissioner regarding restoration of the land in dispute to Ahmad Khan allottee was not valid. It was however, held that if it was proved that the land was leased out to Fazal Din and Ahmed Din under the order of the Competent Authority and had been paying the rent as lessee and not the share of Government after the resumption of land from Ahmed Khan and had applied for the grant of proprietary rights within the prescribed limit they would be eligible to obtain the proprietary rights of only 12-1/2 acres of land.
4. The petitioners did not challenge the order dated 17-1-1984 any further till they filed Writ Petition No,2316 of 1994 after about 11 years after remand by the Collector through order dated 27-11-1986 in which it was held that land in dispute was never leased out to Fazal Din and Ahmad Din under temporary cultivation scheme and they were directed to pay Rs,69,921.50 as Government share of produce for illicit cultivation. Two appeals against the said order of the Collector filed by the contesting parties were dismissed on 22-2-1987. The petitioners filed Revision Petition No,564 of 1987 before the Board of Revenue against this order whereas Fazal Din and Ahmad Din also filed revision petition against the said order. The revision petition filed by the petitioners, which was considered as review application, was dismissed by the Board of Revenue through order dated 27- 5-1992 and the revision petition of Fazal Din and Ahmad Din was accepted on the same date.
5. Against this order the petitioners filed Writ Petition No,6181 of 1995 which had arisen from the dismissal order of their review dated 27-5-1992 whereas Writ Petition No,2316 of 1994 was filed against the order in Revision Petition No,564 of 1987 of Fazal Din etc.
6. These writ petitions have been dismissed by the learned Judge of the High Court through the impugned judgment dated 28-2-2001 on the ground of laches. It was observed that petitioner's fate was sealed by order dated 17-1-1984 which the petitioners did not challenge within reasonable time.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Writ Petition No,2316 of 1995 which was directed against order dated 27-5-1992 did not suffer from laches inasmuch as the same was filed within a period of A about 3 years of passing of that order. This does not in any manner help the petitioners for in this petition they had attempted to challenge the order of Member (Colonies) dated 17-1-1984 through which their case was dismissed and the case was remanded for a limited purpose of considering the case of Fazal Din etc, therefore, in post remand proceedings the petitioners were not concerned and could not agitate the matter.
8. Coming to Civil Petition No,1498/L of 2001 which has arisen from Writ Petition No,6181 of 1995, the findings of the High Court that the same suffer from laches do not suffer from any legal infirmity for the fate of the petitioner was sealed with the findings of fact that he was in breach of the condition of agreement by order dated 17-1-1984 of Board of Revenue which had attained finality.
9. For the foregoing reasons, both these petitions have no merit which are accordingly dismissed and .