1989 PLP 168 (CLC)

SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑‑This dispute relates to the house bearing Custodian No.1C/12 corresponding City Survey Nos.D/136, 137, 138, and 139 situated in Tando Adam, District Sanghar. The property was treated as evacuee property and was taken over by the Custodian. The petitioners applied to the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Committee Sanghar on 29‑6‑1963 for permanent tenancy in their favour but it was not acceded. It has been alleged that on promulgation of Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act of 1975 the control and management of the property was taken over by the Assistant Administrator Evacuee Trust . Property. A notice was issued to the petitioner No.2 by the Assistant Administrator on 22‑9‑1975 calling upon him to pay rent at the rate of Rs.40 p.m. On 30‑4‑1981 the respondents Nos.4 to 6 filed ejectment application against the petitioners in respect of the aforesaid house claiming that they are the transferee of the aforesaid portion of the property in possession of the petitioners and a permanent transfer deed has been issued in their favour by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 11‑8‑1976. The Controller granted the ejectment application and the petitioners were directed to hand over vacant possession to the respondents Nos. 4 to

6. The petitioners filed appeals separately before the High Court of Sind which were dismissed on 21‑10‑1984. The petitioners claiming that the property belongs to the Evacuee Trust filed an application under section 8 (2) of the Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act of 1975 before the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board who issued a notice but according to the petitioners no decision has been communicated to them. It has however transpired that these applications were withdrawn on 1‑4‑1986. The petitioners also filed a suit for declaration that transfer in favour of respondents Nos.4 to 6 was illegal but this suit was dismissed on 26‑2‑1987 for non‑prosecution . After the appeals were dismissed by the high Court the Evacuee Trust Property Board filed an application under section 8(2) of the Evacuee Trust Property (Management anti Disposal Act), hereinafter referred as the Act, for determination of the status and character of the property and also seeking cancellation of documents issued to respondents Nos.4 to

6. The Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board after making inquiry declared the property as evacuee trust property and cancelled the P . T . D . which according to him was issued after the target date. The respondents Nos.4 to 6 filed revision under section 17 of the Act before the Secretary Religious Affairs and Minority Affairs Islamabad. The revision was allowed and the order of the Chairman was held to be invalid, void ab infio and without jurisdiction. The petitioners have challenged this order in this petition. At the outset it may be mentioned that in the petition filed by the Administrator for declaration of the property as trust property the petitioners were not joined as parties and at no stage they have been parties to the proceedings. The action taken by the Trust Board was with a view to get a declaration that the property was a trust property. Therefore, in these circumstances the petitioners were not a necessary party nor they are aggrieved by the decision by which the application of the Board has been dismissed. Mr. Riaz Ahmed Advocate for the petitioner has contended that impugned order is illegal and without jurisdiction as it does not give any reason. The order passed by the respondent No.l though short is comprehensive and mentions the reason for granting the revision application. It mentions an order of the Chairman dated 19‑12‑1977 which in fact should be 9‑12‑1977 which has been annexed as Annexure 'Q1' to the petition. By this order the Chairman as far back as in 1977 declared the property as evacuee non‑trust property. Referring to this order the respondent No.l took the view that having once decided the nature of the property in 1977 it could not be changed in 1986 which will amount to a review and is not permissible. A perusal of the order dated 9‑12‑1977 will show that full inquiry was made by the Chairman and once an order has been passed treating it to be a non‑trust property it was not open to the Chairman to re‑open the 'case and review the order passed about 9 years back. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order which has been passed in exercise of ,roper jurisdiction. Mr. Hakim Ali Siddiqui the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the petitioners have no interest in the transfer of the property and wanted to remain as a tenant therefore they cannot challenge the order passed by the Chairman. In this regard he has referred to Nisar Muhammad v. Additional Secretary 1979 SCMR

299. In this case when the property was declared evacuee trust Property the PTD issued to the respondents Nos.3 and 4 was not validated. They filed petition before the Federal Government which came up before respondent No.l who validated the transfer in favour of respondent Nos.3 and

4. The petitioner who was a tenant of the said property challenged this order in writ jurisdiction of the High Court which was dismissed in limine. In a petition for Special Leave to Appeal the Honourable Supreme Court observed. "We find that the learned Judge in the High Court has in a well‑reasoned order and after discussing the judgments for and against on the point of the petitioner's locus standi held that the writ petition was not maintainable at their instance and we have not been persuaded to take a different view. Clearly, it is a sine qua non for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 that the petitioner should be an aggrieved person. He must, therefore, establish a direct or indirect injury to himself and substantial interest in the subject‑matter of the proceedings. The stand of the petitioners throughout has been that they were tenants paying rent to the Evacuee Trust Board and never claimed the transfer of the property and indeed in law they were not so entitled. Their writ petition was, therefore, rightly dismissed by the High Court and no ground for interference exists. This petition accordingly fails and is dismissed hereby. The dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court equally, applies to the present case. The petitioners are claiming tenancy rights without claiming the transfer of property, they have therefore no locus standi to challenge the impugned order. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. A . A . / M‑597 / K . Petition dismissed.