1989 SCMR 1587 (PLP)

USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑This appeal by leave of the Court has arisen from the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 17‑6‑1986, whereby writ Petition No.532/84 of the appellants, regarding a residential plot in Islamabad, was dismissed. The alleged facts of the case are briefly stated that one Mr. Abdus Samad Khan father of the appellants was allotted plot Not St. No.64, Shalimar‑8, Islamabad, by the C.D.A. for a sum of Rs.27,277.78 in 1967, for construction of a residential building on it vide registered agreement, dated 28‑6‑1973. After the 1971, debacle he surrendered the plot to C.DA. and himself migrated to Bangladesh being a citizen of East Pakistan. The C.D.A. allotted the said plot to the present appellants, who being citizens of Pakistan and also in possession of valid National Identity Cards, vide agreement, dated 17‑2‑1974 with the condition that the appellants should seek clearnace from the Deputy Administrator (Abandoned Properties) under the Abandoned Properties (Taking over and Management) Act (NoXX) of 1975. The appellants submitted an application to the Deputy Administrator (Abandoned Properties) respondent No.2 herein, who rejected the application vide order 23‑8‑1977 and declared the plot in dispute as abandoned property vide his order, dated 13‑9‑1977. The appellants filed appeal before the Board of Trustees (Abandoned Properties) Cabinet Division Islamabad, which was also rejected vide, order, dated 15‑1‑1980. The appellants then moved an application before the Federal Government for exemption of the plot in question from the operation of Abandoned Properties (Management) Act 1975 which war also turned down vide order, dated 16‑5‑1984. Being aggrieved from the abovementioned orders of the authorities concerned, the appellants filed a constitutional petition in the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi. A learned Single Judge of the High Court who heard the writ petition, vide his order, dated 17‑6‑1986, concluded as under:‑ The grievance of the petitioners is that the Deputy Administrator has not considered the question whether the transfer made by their father in their favour ought to be confirmed or not. I find from the application which the petitioners submitted to the Deputy Administrator that they had not made any such request. The petitioners, if it is still open to them, may move the Deputy Administrator for confirmation. With these observations this writ petition is disposed of. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. The learned counsel for the appellants made us to go through the application, dated 22‑10‑1976 addressed to the Deputy Administrator Abandoned Properties) Cabinet Division, Pak. Secretariat No.1, Rawalpindi on the appellants, wherein a reference was made to the C. D. A. letter NO.CDA/EM‑S‑8(64)2/66/3088/6332, dated 20‑4‑1976 which is attached as Annexure , asking the appellants to get the plot in dispute released from the ,Deputy Administrator (Abandoned Properties). The appellants complied with the directions contained therein and submitted copies of their domicile certificates national identity cards and affidavit to the effect that they are Pakistani citizens and permanently settled at Nazimabad Karachi. It is to be seen that this application of the appellants was not properly disposed of by the Deputy Administrator (Abandoned Properties). The constitutional petition of the appellants before the High Court was also not dismissed but the learned Judge observed that it is still open to the petitioners to move the Deputy Administrator A for confirmation. It is a matter of record that the appellants have proved their identity to be Pakistani nationals and are in possession of valid National Identity Cards and being bona fide residents of Karachi, are the facts necessary for consideration of the Deputy Administrator (Abandoned Properties). Thus under the circumstances we allow this appeal, remand the case to the Deputy Administrator (Abandoned Properties) for deciding the application afresh, treating it a valid application and the appellants are also permitted to amend the application, if they so desire. M.A.K/Q‑25/S Case remanded.