2010 SCMR 1078 (PLP)
ANEES AHMED — Petitioner Versus SECRETARY MINISTRY OF MINORITIES AND RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 SCMR 1078 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqbal and Anwar Zaheer Jamali, JJ |
| Parties | ANEES AHMED — Petitioner Versus SECRETARY MINISTRY OF MINORITIES AND RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act (XIII of 1975) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 SCMR 1078 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act (XIII of 1975) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 SCMR 1078 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Javed Iqbal and Anwar Zaheer Jamali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 SCMR 1078 (PLP) (ANEES AHMED — Petitioner Versus SECRETARY MINISTRY OF MINORITIES AND RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Naveed Shahryar, Advocate Supreme Court and Haji Muhammad Rafi Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Qamar-uz-Zaman, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Talib Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th April, 2010.
- 2. Sh. Naveed Shahryar, learned Advocate Supreme Court entered appearance on behalf of petitioner and contended that property in question could not have been declared as `Evacuee Trust Property' by the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Properties Board without any substantial evidence which admittedly is lacking in this case. It is next contended that the property remained in the ownership of Provincial Government in the Revenue Record, hence the exercise of jurisdiction by the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Properties Board under the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 is illegal. It is also contended that the property in question was directed to be allotted to the petitioner under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 which could not be done by the Collector for certain extraneous considerations which escaped the notice of learned single Judge in chambers causing serious prejudice against the petitioner.
- 4. It is to be noted that the property in question has been declared as Evacuee Trust by the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Properties Board, by means of order dated 5-8-2006 and revision petition preferred against it has also been dismissed by the Secretary, Ministry of Minorities and Religious Affairs (Appellate Authority) vide order dated 6-1-2007. The learned Advocate Supreme Court could not point out that as to how the exercise of power by the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Properties Board and Secretary, Ministry of Minorities and Religious Affairs was illegal or ultra vires. We are not persuaded to agree with the prime contention of Sh. Naveed Shahryar, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner that State land could not have been declared as Evacuee property because no objection worth the name was made by the Provincial Government being a recorded owner. The petitioner has absolutely no cause of grievance because merely the initiation of proceedings qua allotment of the land in question does not amount to factual allotment which was never made in favour of the petitioner. "The object of proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan is the enforcement of a right and not the establishment of legal right and therefore the right of the petitioner which he seeks to enforce must be clear and complete and besides that there must be an actual infringement of rights" (Emphasis provided). In this regard reference can be made to cases titled State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra AUR 1964 SC 685, Dineshcharan v. State of M.B. AIR 1953 Madh. B 165, Kandaswamy v. Deputy Registrar AIR 1954 Mad. 348, Laxman Singh v. Raj Pramukh, M.B. AIR 1953 Madh-B.54.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 16-5-2007 passed in Writ Petition No.4666 of 2007).
S.10
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Jurisdiction of Chairman Evacuee Trust Properties Board
Plea raised by petitioner was that property in question could not be declared as Evacuee Trust Property, as proceedings regarding its allotment were initiated in his favour
Property in question was declared as Evacuee Trust by Chairman Evacuee Trust Properties Board and revision petition preferred against it was also dismissed by Federal Government
Petitioner could not point out that as to how exercise of power by Chairman Evacuee Trust Properties Board and Federal Government was illegal or ultra vires
Petitioner had no right in property in question, therefore, question of its infringement did not arise
Property in question remained `Dharamsala' in old Revenue Record which was subsequently converted into Primary School for Girls and accordingly its nature was changed and it was recorded as land to `Rafah-i-Aamah'
High Court rightly dismissed the petition filed by petitioner, as the same was frivolous and misconceived
Leave to appeal was refused. State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra AIR 1964 SC 685; Dineshcharan v. State of M.B. AIR 1953 Madh. B165; Kandaswamy v. Deputy Registrar AIR 1954 Mad.348 and Laxman Singh v. Raj Pramukh, M.B. AIR 1953 Madh-B. 54 rel.
Judgment & Decree
JAVED IQBAL, J.
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against order dated 16-5-2007 whereby writ petition preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed.
2. Sh. Naveed Shahryar, learned Advocate Supreme Court entered appearance on behalf of petitioner and contended that property in question could not have been declared as `Evacuee Trust Property' by the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Properties Board without any substantial evidence which admittedly is lacking in this case. It is next contended that the property remained in the ownership of Provincial Government in the Revenue Record, hence the exercise of jurisdiction by the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Properties Board under the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 is illegal. It is also contended that the property in question was directed to be allotted to the petitioner under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 which could not be done by the Collector for certain extraneous considerations which escaped the notice of learned single Judge in chambers causing serious prejudice against the petitioner.
3. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of the petitioner in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. We have minutely perused the order impugned. It is worth-mentioning that Anees Ahmad (petitioner) has preferred a writ petition with the following prayer:-- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the order dated 8-5-2006 passed by Chairman Evacuee Trust Property (respondent No.2) and the order dated 6-1-2007 passed by the Secretary (respondent No.1) may kindly be declared as unlawful and non-existing as such the writ may kindly be issued. Any other relief which this honourable Court deems fit may also be awarded to the petitioners."
4. It is to be noted that the property in question has been declared as Evacuee Trust by the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Properties Board, by means of order dated 5-8-2006 and revision petition preferred against it has also been dismissed by the Secretary, Ministry of Minorities and Religious Affairs (Appellate Authority) vide order dated 6-1-2007. The learned Advocate Supreme Court could not point out that as to how the exercise of power by the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Properties Board and Secretary, Ministry of Minorities and Religious Affairs was illegal or ultra vires. We are not persuaded to agree with the prime contention of Sh. Naveed Shahryar, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner that State land could not have been declared as Evacuee property because no objection worth the name was made by the Provincial Government being a recorded owner. The petitioner has absolutely no cause of grievance because merely the initiation of proceedings qua allotment of the land in question does not amount to factual allotment which was never made in favour of the petitioner. "The object of proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan is the enforcement of a right and not the establishment of legal right and therefore the right of the petitioner which he seeks to enforce must be clear and complete and besides that there must be an actual infringement of rights" (Emphasis provided). In this regard reference can be made to cases titled State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra AUR 1964 SC 685, Dineshcharan v. State of M.B. AIR 1953 Madh. B 165, Kandaswamy v. Deputy Registrar AIR 1954 Mad. 348, Laxman Singh v. Raj Pramukh, M.B. AIR 1953 Madh-B.54.
5. As mentioned hereinabove the petitioner has no right whatsoever hence the question of its infringement does not arise. The property in question remained 'Dharamsala' in the old record which was subsequently converted into a Primary School for Girls and accordingly its nature was changed and it was recorded as a land to 'Rafah-i-Aamah'. The writ petition preferred on behalf of petitioner is frivolous and misconceived which has rightly been dismissed vide judgment impugned which being well based does not warrant interference. The petition being devoid of merits is dismissed and leave refused. M.H./A-18/SC Petition dismissed.