P L D 2002 Lahore 290 (PLP)

NAZIR AHMAD SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑This lntra‑Cour; Appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 is directed against the judgment dated 31‑7‑2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber, whereby Writ Petition No.3521 of 2000 filed by the appellants against the respondents was dismissed in limine by observing that the matters relating to contractual obligations and involving factual controversy could not be made a subject‑matter of a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. (Note.‑‑The appellants, respondent No.4 and respondents Nos. l to 3 have brought on record Annex. A to P; R/1 to R/7 and RA/1 to RA/15, respectively).

2. Facts necessary for the disposal of the instant appeal with reference to unquestioned documents available on the file are that the Cantonment Board, Multan vide his.Resolution No.5 dated 18‑2‑1978 (R/1) sought the approval of Federal Government for leasing out site measuring 300 square yards out of Survey No.85, Qasim Road, Multan Cantt. for the establishment of a Service Station, through public auction. (This proposal was transmitted to the Federal Government by the Military Estate Officer, Multan Cantt. vide his letter dated 20‑4‑1978 (Annex. H) through the Deputy Director, Military Lands and Cantt. RHQ, Lahore.) This proposal was approved by the Federal Government and pursuant thereto, the auction for leasing the said area was conducted on 18‑7‑1978 as per Schedule published in the daily "Imroz", Multan dated 2‑7‑1978 (R/2). The bid of the appellant No. l Malik Muhammad Majeed being the highest at Rs.1,65,000 (premium only) was accepted. The Cantonment Board, Multan vide its letter dated 27‑7‑1978 (Annex: J‑R/3‑RA/2) addressed to the Deputy Director, Military Lands and Cantonment, Lahore Region, requested for confirmation of auction proceedings. however, vide letter dated 18‑8‑1981 (R/5‑RA/5) issued by the Government of Pakistan Ministry of Defence (ML & C Department), Rewalpindi addressed to the Deputy Director Military Lands and Cantts. Lahore Region (copies were also endorsed to the Cantonment Executive Officer, Multan and Military Estate Officer, Multan) directing that: "The Cantonment Board may please be instructed to cancel the auction proceedings and to reject above‑referred the highest bid." This letter was considered by the Cantonment Board, Multan and vide its Resolution No.37 dated 6‑12‑1981 (RA/6), the concerned authority was requested to, "revise its decision". Later on, vide letter dated 25‑4‑1982 (RA/7‑R/6‑Annex.0) issued by the Government of Pakistan. Ministry of Defence. Rawaloindi, addressed to the Director, Military Lands and Cantonments, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi (copies were also endorsed to Deputy Director, Military Lands and Cantonments, Lahore and the Cantonment Executive Officer, Multan) sanction of the lease vas granted for establishment of Servit;cStation on the site‑in‑question. Vide another letter dated 4‑5‑1982 issued by the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Defence (ML & C Department), Rawalpindi (RA/8), the Executive Officer, Multan Cantt. was asked to, "complete the essential formalities on priority basis with reference to letter dated 25‑4‑1982". Later on, vide its Resolution No.5 dated 15‑8‑1982 (RA/9‑R/9‑Annex.K/1), Cantonment Board, Multan considered the "building application alongwith plans submitted by the appellant Malik Muhammad Majeed for the proposed construction of Service Station and Show Room on the plot mentioned above", and resolved, "that the proposed construction of Service Station may not be allowed since the Cantonment Board is constructing its own Shopping Centre adjacent to this site. Service Station is likely to adversely affect the beauty of the Shopping Centre. It will also create sanitary problems in the area due to absence of sewerage disposal arrangement in the area. As such the lessee be asked to utilize the site for commercial purpose viz. Show Room/Shop and Office etc. and submit fresh building plans." Accordingly a letter was also issued by the Cantonment Board to the appellant Malik Muhammad Majeed on 17‑8‑1982 (Annex. L) with reference to this Resolution intimating him that his building plan for Service Station has not been sanctioned and the, "site may be utilized for commercial purpose viz. Show RoomVShops and Offices etc." ,and he was asked to, "submit fresh building plan. accordingly". Thereafter a lease deed was executed and registered on 16‑10‑1982 (Annex. K‑RA/10) by the appellant Malik Muhammad Majeed (lessee) and the Cantonment, Executive Officer on behalf of the President of Pakistan (lesser), with reference to rules made under section 280 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, the Resolution No.37 dated 6‑12‑1981 and the letter dated 4‑5‑1982 of the Ministry of.Defence. In its clause 1(5), the purpose was shown, "commercial use except hotel, cinema and petrol pump". A strip of land measuring 103.119 Sq.M. adjacent to this very site was sought to be obtained on lease by the appellant Malik Muhammad Majeed for the construction of a Store Room through private treaty. This was favourably considered and recommended by the Cantonment Board, Multan vide its Resolution No.7 dated 8‑3‑1983 (RA/11) and the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Defence (ML & C Department), Rawalpindi vide letter dated 27‑10‑1983 (RA/13) granted the sanction for the construction of a Store Room. Malik Muhammad Majeed (appellant) vide his application dated 10‑12‑1983 (RA/12) addressed to the Executive Officer Cantonment Board, Multan Cantt. requested to reduce the rate of the annual rent and the amount of premium, This request was acceded to vide letter dated 3‑3‑1984 issued by the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Defence (Ml, & C Department), Rawalpindi in the shape of a corrigendum (RA/1,4) and the rates were accordingly reduced, "for the construction of a store room". Subsequently, another lease deed dated 10‑7‑1984 (RA/15‑Annexure‑A‑Annexure M) was executed by the Cantonment Executive Officer, Multan on behalf of the President of Pakistan (lessor) and the appellant Malik Muhammad 114ajeed (lessee). Its preamble also shows that this is with reference to the Rules made under section 280 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 and with the confirmation of the Cantonment Resolution No.37 dated 6‑12‑1981 (RA/6), Resolution No.7 dated 8‑3‑1983 (RA/7) and letters of the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of 'Defence dated 4‑5‑1982 (RA/8), 17‑10‑1983 (RA/12) and 3‑5‑1984 (RA/14). Its clause 1(5) also shows the purpose, "for commercial use except hotel, cinema and Petrol Pump". Thereafter the appellants constructed a double storey commercial building in the shape of Restaurant, Shops and Offices 1 after getting the plan sanctioned by the Cantonment Board, (Annex.N dated 17‑10‑1984). A portion of the building was also given on rent by the appellants to Metropolitan Bank and a private company K.S.B. Pumps. When it carne to the notice of the Federal Government that the construction had been raised in utter disregard of the purpose for which the area‑in‑question was leased out, the lease was annulled by holding the same as void vide letter dated 12‑4‑2000 (Annex.C) and pursuant thereto respondent No.4 also issued a letter to the appellants on 12‑4‑2000 (Annex.D) and notice (Annex.E) dated 13‑4‑2000 under section 3(i) of the, Central Government . Lanas and Buildings (Recovery , of Possession) Ordinance, 1965 (No.LIV of 1965) (hereinafter called the Ordinance) for handing over the possession of the building to the respondents.

3. The aforesaid action of the respondents of cancelling the lease as well as notice under section 3 of the Ordinance have been challenged by the appellants through a petition (No.3521 of 2000) under Article 199 of the Constitution., which was dismissed in limine by a learned Judge of this Court vide his judgment dated 31‑7‑2000. Hence, this Intra‑Court Appeal.

4. Mr. Uinar Atta Bandyal, learned counsel for the appellants, assisted by Mr. Ameen‑ud‑Din Khan, Advocate vigorously started arguing the case by submitting that the "contest" is between the State and law‑abiding citizens, who have been deprived of their "due" in an ugly, arbitrary and unlawful manner. He has made the following submissions:‑‑ (A) (i) that no reason was given by the respondents in their impugned letters for taking the action under challenge; (ii) that undisputedly no notice whatsoever was given to the appellants by respondents Nos.1 to 3 before taking the action under challenge. They were condemned unheard. This being so, impugned action is violative of the principle of natural justice i.e. "audi alteram partem"; (iii) that the impugned action is also in utter disregard of the guarantees/safeguards provided to a person and his .property under the Constitution vide Articles 4, 23, 24 and 25; (iv) that provisions of section 3 of the Ordinance 1965 can only be invoked either upon the expiry of a lease of Government land or upon the breach of any covenant imposing an obligation on the lessee to give up possession of the demised Government land required for public purpose and prior to it, Federal Government ought to have provided an opportunity of hearing to the affected party, but none of the essentials is available in the present case. Furthermore, there is no provision in the Ordinance to take possession of or confiscate any part or whole of a superstructure not belonging to the Government. The power conferred by section 3 of the Ordinance is specifically restricted to any land or building of which the Central Government is the lessor or the lessee. (v) that the rules of locus poenitentiae and promissory estoppel are fully .attracted to the present set of circumstances. The lease was executed in favour of the appellants firstly in the year 1982 and lastly in the year 1984 in a transparent lawful manner. Thereafter the site plan for the construction of the present building (pursuant to Resolution No.5 dated 6‑12‑1981 of the Cantonment Board‑R/7) modifying the purpose of lease "from establishing a Service Station" to a "commercial building" was duly approved by the Cantonment Board, Multan on 17‑10‑1984 (Annex.N) and the appellants on the basis thereof raised construction , in the shape of a Chinese Restaurant, Shops and Offices. They had never committed any breach of the conditions/covenants incorporated in the lease deeds in‑question. They had been paying the taxes and State dues regularly and promptly. , This state of affairs was fully in the knowledge of the respondents but neither they r16r anyone from their end "raised any eye‑brow" with regard to the present building on "prominent commercial site in the principal market area of Multan Cantonment." In support of the above submissions reliance has been placed on the following judgments:‑‑ (1) Messrs Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager, Quaid‑e -Azam, International Airport, Karachi and others 1998 SCMR 2268; (2) Ch. Anwar M. Khan and 6 others v. The Director of Industries and Mineral Development and another PLD 1994 Lah. 70; (3) Muhammad Hussain v. Waheed Ahmad and 3 others 2000 MLD 281; (4) Islamization of Laws‑‑Public Notice No.5/83 PLJ 1984 FSC 1; (5) Sh. Azmatullah v. Military Estate Officer, Lahore Circle, Lahore Cantt. and 2 others PLD 1979 Lah. 911; (6) Mazhar Hussain v"tProvince of Punjab PLD 1985 Lah. 394; (7) Abdul Haq and 2 others v. The Resident Magistrate, Uch Sharif and 6 others PLD 2000 Lah. 101; (8) Abdul Hameed v. Province of Punjab and others 1991 CLC 1666; (9) Muhammad Yousaf v. I.‑G. of Police and 4 others PLD 1997 Lah. 135; (10) Malik Meraj Khalid v. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan through its President and another PLD 1988 Lah. 325; (11) Jalla v. Abdul Hayee PLD 1988 Lah. 234; (12) Anjuman Jamia Tauheedia (Regd.) v. Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate and another 1990 MLD 1468; (13) Syed Wasey Zafar and 4 others v. Government of Pakistan and others PLD 1994 SC 621; (14) Ali Mir v. Province of Punjab and another PLD 1983 Lah. 262; (15) Muhammad Yaqoob v. Government of Punjab and 3 others 1996 CLC 264; (16) Messrs Huffaz Seamless Pipe Industries Ltd. v. Sul Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd. and others 1998 CLC 1890; (17) Capital Development Authority through Chairman and others v. Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan and others 1999 SCMR 2636; (18) Government of 'Sindh through Secretary, Home Department, Karachi and another v. Abbas Ahmad, Advocate and 2 others 1994 SCMR 923; (19) Municipal Committee, Daska through its Chairman v. Messrs Farhat Nadeem and Co. M.C. Daska through Mubarak Ali Butt and 5 others 1994 SCMR 1235; (20) Abdul Qadeer Khan and others v. Chairman, C.D.A. through its Chairman and others 1999 YLR 247; (21) Muhammad Ishaq and another v. Collector, Lahore District, Lahore and others 2000 YLR 1074; (22) Daewoo Corporation through Attorney v. National Highway Authority through Chairman 2000 MLD 1745; (23) Messrs Travel Express Ltd. v. Services Club and 2 others 1986 CLC 2642; (24) Mian Bashir Ahmed v. The Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Sindh Secretariat, Karachi and 3 others 1997 MLD 1847; (25) National Industrial Cooperative Credit Corporation Ltd. and another v. Province of Punjab/Government of Punjab through Secretary, Cooperative Department and another PLD 1992 Lah. 462; (26) The Province of Punjab and another v. National Industrial Cooperative Credit Corporation and another 2000 SCMR 567; (27) Aftab Shahban Mirani v. President of Pakistan and others 1998 SCMR 1863; (28) Pyramid Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Lahore Development Authority 1998 MLD 595; (29) Karim Charania v. Nabi Bux Bhurgari 1998 MLD 812; (30) Zulfiqar Ali v. Divisional Superintendent (Workshops), Pakistan Railways, Moghalpura, Lahore and another PLD 2001 Lah. 13; (31) Ziauddin Hospital Trust through Trustee and Medical Director v. Director, General/Commissioner, Excise and Taxation, Sindh, Karachi PLD 2001 Kar. 52; (32) Network Television Marketing Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan and another 2001 CLC 681; (33) Ardeshir Cowasjee and 4 others v. Clifton Cantonment Board and 28 others 1998 MLD 1818; . (34) Asif Iqbal v. Karachi Metropolitan Corporation and 2 others PLD 1994 Kar. 60; (35) Syed Muhammad Khurshid Abbas Gardezi and others v. Multan Development Authority and others PLD 1983 SC 151; (36) Nawabzada Muhammad Umar Khan and 4 others v. Pakistan through Secretary, Cabinet Division and 2 others PLD 1982 Pesh. 1; (37) Owaisco v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1999 Karachi 472; (38) Miss Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan and another PLD 1988 SC 416; (39) Saiyyid Abul A'la Maudoodi and 2 others v. The Government of West Pakistan and others PLD 1964 SC 673; (40) Federation of Pakistan arid another v. Malik Ghulam Mustafa Khar PLD 1989 SC 26; (41) Riazuddin v. Chairman, PIA Corporation and 2 others PLD 1992 SC 531; (42) Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto v. The President of Pakistan through the Secretary to the President PLD 1992 SC 492; (43) Mst. Abeda Begum v. Government of Pakistan and ,others 1985 CLC 2859; (44) Mst. Qaisra Ellahi v. Hazara (Hill Tract) Improvement Trust through Chairman and 5 others PLD 1995 Pesh. 22. (B) that the naked arbitrariness of the impugned action was attempted to be defended by the respondents on the principle of an exception to the rules of locus poenitentiae and 'audi alteram partem', on the strength of two judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court namely "2000 SCMR 907" (Abdal Haque Indhar and others v. Province of Sindh through Secretary Forest, Fisheries and Livestock Department, Karachi and 3 others) and "PLJ 1999 Supreme Court 2331 " (Ardeshir Cowasjee and 10 others v. Karachi Building Control Authority (KMC), Karachi and 4 others) but the same could not be strictly applied to the present set of circumstances. The relevance of the exception depends on certain essential facts, out of which the most dominant are the facts showing a perversion of public power by its exercisc in favour of private individuals in derogation of public interest. (C) (i) that the land in‑ question is classified as Class "C" land, which by virtue of section 108 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (hereinafter called the .Act) vests and belongs to the Cantonment Board. This being so, the Cantonment Board alone was competent to determine the purpose of the lease. Reference has‑been made to "PLD 1975 Supreme Court 37" (Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of .Defence v. Province of Punjab and others). Even otherwise the Resolution No.5 dated 15‑8‑1982 (RA/9‑Annex. K/1) of the Cantonment Board modifying the commercial use of the auctioned property from establishing a Service Station to a commercial building, is contemplated by the terms of the Federal Government letter dated 24‑3‑1980 (Annex.P), as being alteration from one commercial qse to another. This letter classifies Petrol Pump, Service Station, Multi Storeyed Building structure as commercial II category. Thus the different commercial applications constitute forms of activity within the same classification of commercial use. This change of purpose was not done upon the asking of the appellants but for the public purposes noted by the Cantonment Board in its said resolution and it is a matter of record that until the impugned order for cancelling the lease was passed on 12‑4‑2000, no person in the eighteen long years ever questioned the right of the appellants pursuant to this resolution, as a result of which, the first lease of the auctioned property was executed in favour of the appellants on 16‑10‑1982 (Annex.K‑RA/10), particularly when the Federal Government had been are of the details of all the proceedings in respect of the property to question within the scope of sections 45‑A, 46, 52 and 53 of the Act. Letters dated 27‑10‑1983 and 3‑5‑1984 (Annex.RA/3 and RA/14) issued by the Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan clearly establish that the Federal Government was fully aware of the first lease deed dated 16‑10‑1982 for erection of commercial building rather than a Service Station. By ordering the merger of the extending area with the existing area and the amendment of the existing lease deed, it is patent that the Federal Government was conscious that the restriction of commercial use as to Service Station had been removed by the Cantonment Board. From the tenor of these letters, it is also evident that no restriction that the Store Room should be for a Service Station, is imposed by the Federal Government: Such an omission itself proves that no condition with respect to a Service Station was operating in the field at the relevant time; (ii) that when Cantonment Board land falling in Class "C" is to be transferred to private parties, then of necessity, it has to be re classified as Class "B‑3" or "B‑4" land. This is because Class "C" classification is reserved for Cantonment Board property only. In this case re‑classification of land was necessary because the appellants as private parties were going to acquire rights in the auctioned land. This reclassification of land can be performed under rule 7 of the Cantonment Lands Administration Rules, 1937 (hereinafter called the CLA Rules) by the Federal Government alone for which the Cantonment Board has to obtain sanction. A second matter on which the Cantonment Board is required to obtain sanction of the Federal Government, is the confirmation of the auction price in respect of Cantonment Land, as envisaged by rule 24 of CLA Rules. Hence by the control of re‑classification of land as well as the price at which Cantonment land may be transferred to private parties, the Federal Government supervises the actions of the Cantonment Board. Other than these two controls, the Cantonment Board is free to deal with its property falling in Class "C". The reference was made to copy of letter dated 11‑3‑1980 issued by the Assistant Director, Military Lands and Cantonments. Rawalpindi to the Deputy Director, Military Lands and Cantonments, Lahore with reference to establishment of Service Station at the site‑in‑question (Annex. 'A' with the written arguments) (iii) that respondents have tried to justify the impugned action on the basis of Rules 8 and 9 of the Cantonment Property Rules, 1957 which are completely inapplicable and misconceived because in the present case, the form of commercial use for a Service Station was proposed by the Cantonment Board itself and the same was made a term of the public auction. This restriction was reviewed by the Cantonment Board itself and altered on valid considerations. At no point in time any condition was imposed unilaterally by the Federal Government which may have attracted the provisions of Rule 8 of the Cantonment Property Rules, 1957. Equally Rule 9 of these Rules is not applicable because it applies to commercial fund building rather than Class "C" land. Thus no illegality was committed by the Cantonment Board by modifying the purpose of the lease . (D) that the Cantonment Board vide its Resolution No.37 dated 6‑12‑1981 (RA/5) observed that the bid of the appellants at Rs.1,65,000 was "still very much on the high side", therefore, it was resolved that the concerned Department be requested to revise its decision about cancellation of the auction as the "chances of having highest amount in case of re‑auction were not possible". As a matter of fact the bid of the appellants was far higher than that of the market value determined by the District Collector. So it cannot be said that any loss was caused to the public exchequer by modifying the purpose of lease; (E) that the order of the learned Single Judge is patently technical in its approach which does not, in any event, correspond either to the record, the facts of the case or the allegations made by the respondents on the merits of the case. When the contents of C.M. No.1901/00 filed in the writ petition are examined, it transpires that the matter has been disposed of under rushed circumstances defying the judicial convention that justice should not only be done but also seen to be done. Therefore, the instant matter requires an adjudication on merits by this Bench instead of sending it back to the learned Single Judge for a decision afresh. C.M.No.1515‑C/2001

5. Learned counsel for the appellants also referred to C. M. No. 1515‑C of 2001 dated 7‑7‑2001 "under.section 151, C.P.C. for an order directing the production of the relevant record". Argued that respondent No.4 had brought on the file of the Writ Petition certain documents through C.M. No.958 of 2000 coming from the confidential record, to which the appellants could not have any access and they would not be in a position to meet with the same. So, it would be in the interest of justice and also for a fair disposal of the appeal to requisition the relevant record. A perusal of the file shows that the copies of documents Annex.R/1 to R/7 were brought during the pendency of the writ petition by respondent No.4 alongwith the comments and copies of documents i.e. RA/1 to RA/15 have been brought on the file of this I.C.A. by the respondents 1 to

3. The appellants had also brought on record copies of almost all these documents including the proposal of lease, Resolutions of the Cantonment Board, sanctioning letters and deeds of lease in question as Annexs. A to P. It is noticed that respondent No.4 through C.M. No.958/00 sought permission to bring on record certain documents i.e. R/8 to R/13, photocopies of some complaints and inquiry report. This application was allowed subject to all just exceptions by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 10‑5‑2000. However, these documents were not even touched by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned judgment. We had already made it clear to the learned counsel that we would not look into these documents i.e. R/8 to R/13 and our discussion would confine to the undisputed material available on the file, to which the learned counsel also repeatedly referred during the arguments. By the way it must also be mentioned that the appellants had also brought, on record documents shown to be confidential ones e.g. AImeX.P filed with their rejoinder. Some more documents have also been annexed with their written arguments. There is no necessity to requisition the record of the case and the present material available on the file is sufficient to decide the points agitated by both the parties. We are not inclined to accede to the request of the appellants made through this application which stands rejected. C.M.No.183/2001

6. This is an application moved by the appellants for directing respondents Nos. l and 2, "to produce the legal opinion (Ref. No. 1583100 Law of 3‑1‑2001) sought by the Ministry of.Defence from Ministry of Law" or, "the Ministry of Law may be directed to provide the appellants a verified copy of that legal opinion". This application has not even been referred to by learned counsel for the appellants. Resultantly C.M. stands dismissed as not pressed.

7. On the other hand, Mr. S.M. Zafar, learned counsel for respondent No.4 assisted by Syed Muhammad Ali Gillani, Advocate and Chaudhry Sagheer Ahmad, learned counsel for the Federation argues that the authority of the Government to take the action of declaring the lease‑ as null and void flows from the following sources:‑‑ (a) Locus poenitentiae; (b) section 21 of the General Clauses Act; (c) section 115 of the Cantonments Act, 1924; and (d) rule 9 of Pakistan Cantonments Property Rules, 1957. (i) that the judgment printed in "2000 SCMR 907" (Abdul Haque Indhar and others v. Province of Sindh through Secretary Forest, Fisheries and Livestock Department, Karachi and 3 others) deals both with locus poenitentiae and jurisdiction of High Court to interfere under Article 199 of the Constitution. It is categorically held that if the order is illegal then perpetual rights cannot be gained on the basis thereof and the principle of natural justice is. not of universal nature and the party claiming any right on that principle must satisfy , the Court that he has a legal and vested right in the property. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying on General Clauses‑Act and the principle of lochs poerritentiae has made significant observation that it is high time to ensure that transactions between the individuals vis‑a‑vis State are just, fair, open and transparent, therefore; the action of individual which is not honest may not be allowed to exist merely for the reason that the principle of natural justice is violated. Another judgment i.e. "PLJ 1999 Supreme Court 2331 " (Ardeshir Cowasjee and 10 others v. Karachi Building Control Authority (KMC), Karachi and 4 others) has also been relied upon to further project this point; (ii) that land/property in the Cantonment area is delineated in section 108 of the Act. This section starts with the condition, "subject to any special reservation made by the Central Government". The land in dispute falls in the category of clause (f) of this section. The learned counsel also referred to section 111 (a) of the Act which empowers the Central Government to make Rules which is reproduced:‑‑ "(a) the condition on which property may be acquired by Board or on which property vested in a Board may be transferred by sale, mortgage, lease, exchange or otherwise." Under this power, the Central Government had made Rules known as Pakistan Cantonments Property Rules, 1957 and its Rules 8 and 9 govern the property. Particularly Rule 9 insists that the property cannot be leased out otherwise save in accordance with the orders of the Central‑ Government and clause (a) of sub‑rule (iii) of rule 9 emphasizes that the purpose must be clearly specified. As a matter of fact, the rule. requires as per Class "C", that the lease deed will contain a clause empowering. the authority to abrogate the lease if the purpose is violated; (iii) that in the lease deeds in question, the words commercial purpose have been introduced with ulterior motive and the same did not contain the clause regarding right to abrogation of the same; (iv) that approval of plan by the Cantonment Board being an act of a subordinate authority cannot amount to validation and same view has been taken in Ardeshir Cowasjec's case (PLJ 1999 Supreme Court 2331); (v) that the judgment cited by learned counsel for the appellants "PLD 1975 Supreme Court 37" (Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Province of Punjab and others.") advances the. case of the respondents rather the appellanis, wherein Rule 9 of the Pakistan Cantonments Property Rules, 1957 was considered (vi) that there is no equity in favour of the appellants who got the lease of the land at a much lower rate because it was only for Service Station. The appellants were fully aware of the purpose for which the lease was sanctioned i.e. Service Station and Store Room but they built Restaurant, Shops and Offices and earned much more than what they had spent. An inquiry in this regard is in progress; (vii) it is lastly contended that the Cantonment Board, Multan is only an executing agency of the impugned order of the Federal Government dated 12‑4‑2000 and the notice under section 3 of the Ordinance has been rightly given. by providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellants through the same.

8. We have considered the submissions made orally at the bar as well as in black and white, perused the undisputed material available on the file and gone through the Judgments relied upon.

9. Though there is no cavil with the legal propositions strenuously advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and supported by the judgments cited by him, in the context of safeguards/guarantees provided to a person and his property vide Articles 4, 23 and 24 of the Constitution, principle of natural justice i.e. "audi alteram partem", rules of promissory estoppel and locus poenitentiae, yet main question which arises for consideration is, "whether the appellants can successfully seek shelter under these legal propositions, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case". It is well‑settled that a person seeking relief, particularly under the Constitution, must show that a right (infringement of which is complained) was accrued to him or earned by him in a bona fide and transparent, lawful manner, in the matter in issue. If it is so, he does qualify for the relief prayed for. If it is otherwise, he shall not be entitled to any relief, what to talk of equitable relief.

10. Before giving any finding on the above question, it shall be appropriate to examine another issue of the matter, though not raised in the writ petition as well as in this appeal yet lime‑lighted by learned counsel for the appellants through his written arguments, in the context of the authority of the Cantonment Board for changing the purpose of the lease with reference to the impact of re‑classification of land from "C" to "B". To appreciate the legal aspect of the matter with reference to the above, it is necessary td know the classes of land in the Cantonments and its significance. Answer is available in the Cantonments Land Administration Rules, 1937 (hereinafter called the CLA Rules) framed by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by virtue of section 280 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (hereinafter called the Act) a reference of which has been made in the lease deeds‑in‑question. This section and the Rules framed thereunder are required to be reproduced for ready reference: "Section 280.‑‑‑Power to make Rules.‑‑‑(1) Central Government may, after previous publication, make rules to carry out the purpose and objects of this Act: (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for 'all or any of the following matters, namely:‑‑‑ (a) The manner in which, and the authority to which, application for permission to occupy land belonging to the Government in a Cantonment is to be made; (b) the authority by which such permission may be granted and the conditions to be annexed to the grant of any such permission; (c) ................ (d) ................ (e) ................ (f) ................ (g) ........... . . (h) ................ (i) ................ (k) ................ " Application of this section to the land in question indicates that .the same belonged to the Government and not to the Cantonment Board. That is why, the Cantonment .Board applied for the approval of leasing out the site in question for the establishing a Service Station. The CLA Rules framed under this section would further clarify this aspect. Rule 3 empowers the Military Estate Officer to prepare a General Land Register of all land in the Cantonment and no addition or alteration could be made therein except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. This rule is reproduced:‑‑ Rule 3.‑‑‑General Land 'Register,‑(1) The Military Estates Officer shall prepare, in the form prescribed in Schedule I, a General Land Register of all land in the cantonment‑‑‑ (a) inside bazars, and' (b) outside bazars. (2) No addition or alteration shall be made in the General Land Register except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or such other authority as the Central Government may appoint for this purpose or in accordance with the provisions of rules 10 and

45. This rule also finds mention in the documents mentioned above, in para

2. With reference to this rule, the area‑in‑question was allocated a new subsidiary survey number. Rule 4 describes classification of land as under:‑‑ Rule 4.‑‑‑Classification of land.‑‑‑For the purposes of the General Land Register prescribed by rule 3‑‑‑ (a) land in the Cantonment which is vested in the Crown shall be divided by the Central Government, or such other authority as the Central Government may empower in this behalf, into two classes, namely:‑‑‑ (i) Class "A" Land which is required or reserved for specific military purposes; and (ii) Class "B" Land which is not so required, or reserved, but which is retained in the Cantonment. for the effective discharge of the duties of the Central Government in respect of military administration; and (b) land which is vested in the Board under section 108 of the Act shall be called Class "C" land. Rule 6 further divides Class "B" land as under:‑‑ . Rule

6. Class "B" Land.‑‑‑ Class "B" ‑land shall be divided by the Central Government or such other authority as they may empower in this behalf, into the following sub‑clauses, namely:‑‑‑ (i) Class "B (1) Land, which is actually occupied or used by the War Department in the administration of Ecclesiastical affairs, including European cemeteries, or by any Department of the Central Government other than the War or the Defence Department or by a Railway Administration; (ii) Class "B" (2) Land, which is actually occupied or used by, or is under the control of, any Department of a Provincial Government; (iii) Class "B" (3) Land, which is held by any private person under the provisions of these rules, or which is held or may be presumed to be held under the provisions of the Cantonment Code of 1899 or 1912; or under any executive orders previously in force, subject to conditions under which the Central Government reserve, or have reserved, to themselves the proprietary rights in the soil; and (iv) Class "B" (4) Land, which is not included in any other class. How a transfer of land from one class to another .can be made? This is dealt with under rule 7:‑‑‑ Rule

7. Transfer of land from one class to another.‑‑‑No alteration in the classification of land which is vested in the Crown or in the Board shall be made except by the Central Government, or by such other authority as they may empower in this behalf, and the conditions on which land may be transferred from one class to antoher shall be governed by the orders of the Central Government, or by the provisions of.any law or rule for the time being in force which may be applicable; provided that land in Class "B" (4) may be transferred to Class "B" (3) by the authority, and subject to the conditions, prescribed by rules 15 to

48. Rule 9 deals with the management of the classes of land:‑‑ Rule 9.‑‑‑Management of Land.‑‑‑‑(1).......... (2) (3) ....... (4) ..... . (5) The management of all Class "B" (3) Land and Class "B" (4) Land shall ordinarily be entrusted to the Military Estates Officer. Provided that the Central Government may entrust the management of any such land to the Board. (6) The management of Class "C" Land vests in the Board under section 108 of the Act. Rule 24 deals with the confirmation of auction, by the competent authority . Rule.

28. Execution of Leases.‑‑‑(1) As soon as the auction has been duly confirmed, the successful applicant shall be required to execute a lease for the site in the form prescribed in Schedule VIII. (2) The lease shall be executed on behalf of the Governor‑General‑in Council (now President of Pakistan) by the Officer empowered in this behalf by the Central Government and a duplicate of the lease shall be retained in the office of the Military Estates Officer. (3) The duplicate lease shall be preserved in an envelope in the form prescribed in Schedule XVI. The lease deeds were accordingly drawn in Schedule VIII. Rule 43 lays down the conditions for the management of the land:‑‑ Rule

43. General conditions applicable to management. ‑‑‑The management of land entrusted to the Board under rule 9 shall be subject to the following conditions, namely:‑‑‑ (i) That such management confers on the Board no pronrietary rights in, and no power to sell, exchange or give away, the land; and that the Central Government may, at any time, impose such restrictions as they consider necessary in the public interest on the use or occupation of any particular areas of land so entrusted to the management of the Board; (ii) that the Board shall have no power to occupy or use the land for the purposes of the Act or for its own purposes without the sanction of the Central Government: but that land required for the aforesaid purposes shall be transferred to Class "C" and vested in the Board by the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of rule 7; (iii) that suits affecting the proprietary rights in the land shall be brought by or against the Central Government and not by or against the Board, but the cost of such litigation shall be borne by the Board; (iv) (v) (vi)

11. Before proceeding further, the following documents are required to be reproduced, in order to comprehend the purpose of the lease‑in‑question. (i) Annex, "H" is a copy of letter dated 20‑4‑1978 . To The Deputy Director, Military Lands and Cantts, RHQ, Lahore Cantt. Subject: PROPOSAL FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SERVICE STATION AT A SITE MEASURING 30' x 90' =300 sq.yds. IN SVY No.85, QASIM ROAD, MULTAN CANTT. Reference RHQ Letter No.23/186/DD/LR/125 dated 5th April, In this connection two copies of CEO Multan Cantt. Letter No.10/1/PW/II/1038 dated 16 April, 1978 on the above subject are enclosed herewith alongwith its enclosures and plans in which they have mooted out the case for re‑classification of land from 'C' to B 4 for establishment of service station in Survey No.85, Qasim Road, Multan Cantt. The site comprising Survey No.85 measuring' 11295 .sq. ydsF is entered in the GLR as 'C' land (Road‑side plot) under the Management of Cantt. Board. The Cantt. Board Multan Cantt. has written to say that M/s: Rehman Sons and Amir Ali have applied for the grant of site adjacent to the PBS Petrol Pump comprising Survey No.85, Qasim Road, Multan Cantt. by private treaty. The Cantt. Board vide its Resolution No.5 dated 18‑2‑1978 has rejected their request and further resolved that a proposal for leasing out site measuring 30' x ‑90' out of Survey No. 85 for the establishment of service station through open public auction be submitted to, the competent authority for approval. It is therefore requested that approval to the following measures may kindly be accorded:‑‑ (i) Exclusion under Rule 3(2) of the CLA Rules, 1937 of an area measuring 30' x 90' =300 sq.yds. out of holding of Survey No.85 thus decreasing its area from 11295 sq.yds. to 10995 sq.yds. and allotment of new subsidiary Survey. No.85/B. (ii) Re‑classification under Rule 7 of the CLA Rules, 1937 of the area in (i) above from 'C' to B‑4 under the management of Cantt. Board. (iii) Leasing out of an area measuring 30' x 90' =300 sq. yds. for the purpose of Establishment of Service Station to the highest bidder whosoever, in Schedule VIII of the CLA Rules, 1937 on payment of annual rent Q 6% of the relevant market value, through public auction. Since the site involved is required for commercial purpose i.e. establishment of Service Station from which the Cantt. Board is likely to derive some income on the basis of rent, as such it is suggested that 1/4th of the STR may be charged from the Cantt. Board under the provisions of Min of Defence Letter No.3/M/18/3300/L/25/54 dated 15‑7‑1957. 1/4th STR of 300 sq.yds. comes to Rs.425 P.A. at Rs.5/66 per sq.yds. as per STR forwarded to RHQ vide this Office Letter No.M‑23/11/339 dated 30th August, 1977. (Sd.) (NAEEM AHMAD), MILITARY ESTATES OFFICER, MULTAN CIRCLE, MULTAN CANTT (ii) Annex./R/2 is a public notice for the auction of the lease for Service Station published in dailv "Inuo7". Multan on 2‑7‑1978‑ URDU (iii) Annex. R/3 is the letter issued by the Cantonment Executive Officer, Multan to the Deputy Director, Military Lands and Cantonments, Lahore Region, Lahore Cantonment:‑‑ Subject: Disposal of leasehold rights of site measuring 30' x 90' = 2700 sft. 300 sq. yds in Survey No.85, Qasim Road. Muitan iv for the establishment of Service Station. Reference MI & C Department Letter No.18/31/L/AD/A/ML & C/78 dated 3‑6‑1978 and Regional Headquarter, Lahore, Cantonment Letter No.23/186/DD/LR/139 dated 10‑7‑1978.

2. The subject site was put to open public auction on 18‑7‑197E after wide publicity. The auction.notice in Schedule VI of the C.L.A. Rules, 1937 was published locally and the advertisement was also done through newspaper for giving wide publicity. The Cantonment Board received the highest bid of ,Rs.1,65,000 which has been accepted by the President Cantonment Board under section 25 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 subject to the approval of the competent authority. The Cantonment Board resolution will be sent in due course of time.' The market value of land adjacent to road is Rs.5,000 per Marla and Rs.3,000 per Marla backside the road as reported by the Deputy Commissioner, Multan vide his Letter No.1093/GAR/HCC dated 8‑2‑1978,' a copy thereof was already forwarded under this Office Letter No.10/1/pw/II/1038 dated 16‑4‑1978 As per above report of the Revenue Authorities the market value of the site being leased out comes to Rs.50,000 approximately whereas the Cantonment Board received the bid of Rs.1,65,000 which is considered‑quite reasonable.

3. As per directions contained in the ML&C Department letter quoted above the annual rent has been fixed as per current S.T.R. which comes to Rs.1,698.

4. In view of the above, it is, requested that sanction of the Government to the following measures may kindly be obtained and communicated to this office at an early date:‑‑ (i) leasing out the site measuring 30' X 90' = 2700 sft=300 sq.yds. out of Survey No.85, Qasim Road, Multan Cantonment to Malik Muhammad Majid on payment of annual rent of Rs.,1,698 and premium of Rs.1,65,000 in Schedule VIII of the C.L.A. Rules, 1937 for the establishment of Service Station. (ii) Exclusion under Rule 3(2) of the CLA Rules, 1937 of an area measuring 30' x 90' = 2700 sft=300 sq.yds. out of holding of Survey No.85 thus decreasing its area from 11277.20 sq.yds. to 10977.20 sq.yds. and allotment of new subsidiary Survey No.85‑B. (iii) Re‑classification under rule 7 of the C.L.A. Rules, 1937 of the area in (i) above from 'C' to B‑3 under the management of the Cantonment Board, Multan. 5: The following documents are enclosed in duplicate:‑‑ (a) Auction notice in Schedule VI of the C.L.A. Rules, 1937 as published vide C.B. Office Letter No.10/1/PW/1980 dated 26‑6‑1978 alongwith the photostat copy of clipping from the newspaper; (b) proposed amendment to the G.L.R. (Sd.) (NAEEM AHMED), CANTONMENT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MULTAN. (iv) Annex. . R/6‑RA/7 (hereinafter called the sanctioning letter) dated 25‑4‑1982, issued by the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi addressed the Director, Military Lands and Cantonments, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi, whereby the sanction to the following measures in Multan Cantonment for establishment of Service. Station out of Survey No.85. Oasim Road. Mulltan was given in the following terms:‑‑ (i) Segregation of an area measuring 300 sq.yds, out of Survey No.85 thereby reducing its area from 11277.20 sq. yds. to 10977.20 sq.yds. (ii) Allotment under Rule 3(2) of the CLA Rules, 1937 of a new subsidiary Survey No.85‑A to the area measuring 300 sq. yds. as in (i) above. , (iii) Re‑classification under Rule 7 of the CLA Rules 1937 of the area of 300 sq.yds. from 'C' to B‑3 under the management of Cantt. Board. Multan. (iv) Leasing out the area measuring 300 sq.yds. under Rule 24 read with Rule 47 of the CLA Rules, 1937 in Schedule VIII of the CLA Rules to Malik Muhammad Majid on payment of annual rental of Rs.2970 and premium of Rs.1,65,000 for establishment of a Service Station, (v) Annex.RA/8 is the copy of letter issued by Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Defence (ML & C Department), Rawalpindi dated 4‑5‑1982:‑‑ "To The Executive Officer, Multan Cantt. Subject: Multan Cantt‑‑Establishment of Service Station at a site measuring 300 sq.yds. out of Survey No.85, Qasim Road.

2. In this connection please refer to Ministry of Defence Letter No. 18/31/L/AD/(A)/ML&C/78/1629/D‑12/ML&C dated 25‑4‑1982.

3. All the essential formalities will be completed on‑priority basis. (Sd.) (Ijaz‑ul‑Haq Qureshi), Assistant Director (A) Tele. No.62183. Copy to: DDML&/C, Lahore." A careful perusal of the CLA Rules when applied to the. present case, established the following: (A) Survey No.85, Qasim Road, Multan is Class "C" land. The area‑in question sought to be leased out from this survey number was re classified from "C" to "B" in terms of Rule 7 of the CLA Rules as is evident from the documents mentioned above (Annex.H, RA/2, RA/7). Admittedly all Class "B" land. vests in the Central Government. The effect of such re‑classification is that the area‑in- question vests in the Central Government under the Management of the Cantonment Board subject to the conditions laid down under Rule 43 of the CLA Rules. (B) As is evident from Conditions Nos. l and 2 of Rule 43 reproduced above, the Central Government retains the power to impose restriction on the use or occupation of any such area and the Cantonment Board has been completely debarred from, "occupying or using the land for the purposes of the act or for its own purposes without the sanction of the Central Government.'

12. It is not disputed that the site‑in‑question after having been re -classified from Class "C" to "B" has been auctioned for leasing out the same for the sole purpose of establishing a Service Station. It is also admitted by the appellants in para. 5.3 of the written arguments that, "by a letter dated 3‑6‑1978, the Military Land and Cantonment Department of the Ministry of Defence, Islamabad (the Federal Government) gave its sanction for the re-classification of the land from Class "C" to Class B‑4 and for the open auction thereof. The public auction was held on 18‑7‑1978". This is also verified from the documents mentioned above, but the assertion of the learned counsel for the appellants is that "re‑classification, however, does not take effect upon the sanction for re‑classification, which in the instant case was authorized on 3‑6‑1978. It takes place at the instant the instrument for which re‑classification was authorized, is executed". As per learned counsel, the lease deed was made effective/operative from 16‑10‑1982 when the appellants executed the same and acquired the leasehold rights. So, according to him, crucial date would be 16‑10‑1982 and not 3‑6‑1978 when the re classification of the land from Class "C" to "B" took place. As per learned counsel, the Cantonment Board before the execution of the lease deed dated 16‑10‑1982 was quite competent to change the purpose of lease as it did vide its Resolution No.5 dated 15‑8‑1982 (Annex.K/1 ‑ RA/9), but, our approach is not in line with the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants. As noticed, this has been admitted by the appellants that the land‑in‑question after having been re‑classified from Class "C" to "B" on 3‑6‑1978 was auctioned as such on 18‑7‑1978 and it was also admitted by them that, "all Class "B" lands including Class B‑3 and B‑4 vest in the Central Government" (Ref. 5.4 of the written arguments). Another important factor which we have very carefully noticed that in the lease deed dated 16‑10‑1982, source of authority of the same has been mentioned as Rules framed under section 280 of the Act, Resolution No.37 dated 6‑12‑1981 (RA/6) and a letter dated 4‑5‑1982 issued from the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Defence (ML & C Department), Rawalpindi addressed to Cantonment Executive Officer, Multan (RA/8). This letter has been issued in furtherance of the sanctioning letter dated 25‑4‑1982 (RA/7) whereby the area‑in question was allowed to be leased out to the appellant Malik Muhammad Majid, "for establishment of Service Station". Lease deed dated 16‑10‑1982 for a period of 30 years shows that it has been made effective from 4th May 1982. The exact words from its para. 3 (though not numbered) are reproduced‑‑ "to hold the premises hereby demised unto the lessee for the term of 30 years from the 4th May. 1982 rendering thereof during the said term .... ... .... When the lease deed not disputed by the appellants has been made effective from 4th May, 1982, how their learned counsel could insist upon that the effect of reclassification of land would take effect upon the date of execution of the lease deed. The date of re‑classifying the land from "C" to "B", as admitted by learned counsel for the appellants is 3‑6‑1978 and date of its action as such on 18‑7‑1978; further the confirmation of the auction of lease of the land‑in‑question as Class "B" is evident from the sanctioning letter dated 25‑4‑1982, even the date 4‑5‑1982 of a letter in furtherance thereof, which has been made a date of making the lease effective and operative, go a long way to maintain that in any case 16‑10‑1982, date of signing of the lease deed by the appellants, cannot be taken to be a date for giving effect of re‑classification of land‑in‑question from "C" to "B" and the same not vesting in the Cantonment Board as Class "B" land could not be dealt with by it in the context of modifying its use without first getting approval from the Federal Government. It is not pleaded at all that the Cantonment Board had ever sought the approval/sanction of the change of use of the land‑in- question or the purpose of lease.

13. The judgment "PLD 1975 Supreme Court 37" (Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Province of Punjab and others) cited by learned counsel for the appellants cannot be strictly made applicable to the present set of circumstances, as the same has been passed in a particular set of circumstances of a civil suit dealing with the land vesting in the Cantonment Board claiming exemption from West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act (V of 1958). The words "vest" and "belong to" used in section 108 of the Cantonments Act have been elaborated. For ready reference, relevant portion of section 108 of the Act is reproduced:‑‑ "Section

108. Property. ‑‑‑‑Subject to any special reservation made by the Central Government, all property of the nature hereinafter in this section specified which has been acquired or provided or is maintained by a Board shall vest in and belong to that Board, and shall be under its directions, management and. control, that is to say,‑‑‑ (a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(f) all land or other property transferred to the Board by the Central or a Provincial Government, or by gift, purchase or otherwise for local public purposes; and (g)

" The words "subject to any special reservation made by the Central Government" and the CLA Rules were neither considered nor discussed. It is also to be noticed here that for the Cantonment property, the Central Government has made Rules under section 111 of the Cantonments Act, known as Pakistan Cantonment Property Rules, 1957. As per its Rule 2 (d), "Class C land means land which is vested in the Board under section 108 of the Act". This is also so mentioned in Rule 4(b) of CLA Rules. As per Rule 9 of Pakistan Cantonments Property Rules, 1957. Rule

9. Provisions ,governing the leasing of Cantonment property. ‑(1) No Class "C" land should be leased or otherwise alienated by the Board save in accordance with such orders as the Government may issue in this behalf." With reference to it, learned counsel for the appellants has read the following lines from this very judgment: "Similarly the provisions of rule 9 of the Property Rules of 1957, giving the Government a right to prescribe conditions under which Class 'C' lands can be leased or otherwise alienated by the Cantonment Board, do not negative the ownership of the property by the Board." Here we would refer with advantage to the remaining lines of this para. of the judgment, which were timely quoted by learned counsel for the respondents: "The Board being a statutory body under the ultimate control and supervision of the Government has, in most cases, to act with the consent and approval of the Government or in accordance with the powers and functions delegated to it. Such delegation may be conditional or unconditional. If the delegation is conditional, then the conditions will have to be observed not as a limitation on the rights of property of the Board but as statutory obligations laid down by the statute creating the Board and giving them powers and functions". It is reiterated that admittedly the land‑in‑question has not been leased out as Class "C" land but the same has been re‑classified from Class "C" to "B" in terms of Rule 7 of the CLA Rules. The proceedings right from holding its suction and confirmation etc. for the purposes of establishing a Service Station took place treating it as a Class "B" land vesting in the Federal Government. For the sake of academic discussion, it shall not be out of place to refer to Rules 6 and 7 of the Pakistan Cantonments Property Rules, 1957: "Rule 6.‑‑Transfer to Cantonment Board of land vested in the Government.‑‑‑(1) When any land in the Cantonment which is vested in Government is required by the Board for a ‑purpose connected with the administration of the Cantonment, the Board may apply to the Government for the grant of land stating the reasons and purposes. The Government may transfer the land to the Board on such conditions. as it may deem fit. (2) If the land applied for is already occupied for any purpose transfer to the Board shall be governed by the 3irovisions of rule 7 of the Cantonment Land Administration Rules 1937. (3) if the land is required for an object front which the Bo T may derive income, it may be transferred to the Board on such conditions and on payment of such annual rent as Government may consider equitable: Provided that no rent shall be charged for Class "C" land in Bazar Area: Provided further that in special circumstances, land may be transferred free of rent. Rule

7. Resumption .by Government.‑‑‑(1) If at any time,‑‑ (i) the land transferred by the Government to the Board is not used for the object for which it was granted; (ii) there has been, in the opinion of the Government of the conditions on which it was transferred; (iii) the land is required for a public purpose; the Government May resume the land without payment of any compensation other than the amount paid by the Board for such transfer and the market value at time of resumption of any building's works or improvement, subsequently erected, executed or made thereon by the Board, as the case may be. (2) The amount of compensation shall be decided by the Government in such case. (3) No compensation may be payable for buildings or works constructed or erected in contravention of the terms of the transfer. " If the case is examined in the context of the above Rules, it also leads to a strong impression that treating the land vesting in the Government, the Cantonment Board applied for the grant of land stating the reasons and purposes. This request of the Board was acceded to in accordance with the CLA Rules framed under section 280 of the Act and the sole purpose attached to the use of the land was that of establishing a Service Station. This being the imperative object for which the land was required by the Board, cannot be brushed aside by the Board in a manner of its own choice. And as per Rule 7, Government has a right of resumption of the land if the same, "is not used for the object for which it was granted". Thus seen either from CLA Rules or Cantonment Property Rules, 1957, Government is not divested of its authority to take action in case the Cantonment Board exceeds its lawful authority with particular reference to the terms and conditions (including purpose) of a lease. It shall not be without significance to mention that the land‑in‑question being vested in the Federal Government, its lease was executed by the appellants (lessees) in favour of the President of Pakistan (lesser).

14. In the written arguments of the appellants, a reference has been made to a letter of Ministry of Defence dated 11‑3‑1980 (appended therewith as Annex. A) addressed to the Deputy Director, Military Lands and Cantonments, Lahore Region, Lahore to show that the Class "C" land absolutely vests in the respective Cann. Board and can be used for any public purpose at the discretion of the Cantt. Board, without any additional Government sanction". A perusal of this letter reveals that as a matter of fact it has been issued in the context of giving no objection for, "establishment of Service Station" at the site‑in‑question. It has been mentioned as under:‑‑ "MEO and CEO, Multan advised that there can be no objection from land point of view to the use of the land for leasing out for a Service Station ............. Issuance of this letter in the shape of no objection by the Ministry of Defence also indicates that there was no objection for, "establishment of Service Station" at the site‑in‑question. This letter cannot supersede the statutory provisions embodied in the Cantonment Act and Rules framed thereunder.

15. Viewed from the above dimensions, this Court is of considered opinion that the Cantonment Board was not competent to alter the purpose of the lease from establishing a Service Station to a commercial building, without getting approval or sanction of the same from the Federal Government, which alone is empowered to do so.

16. Now we proceed to examine the lease deeds‑in‑question. In the first lease deed dated 16‑10‑1982 (Annex. K‑R/10), the following have been shown as source of authority: "Whereas by virtue of rules made under section 280 of Cantonments Act, 1924 the Cantonment Board of Multan Cantonment (hereinafter called the Cantonment Board) has agreed on behalf of the Lessor with the confirmation of the Cantonment Board, Multan Resolution No.37 dated 6‑12‑1981 and Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Defence Letter No.18/31/L/AD(A)/ML&C/78 dated 4‑5‑1982 to demise the plot of land hereinafter described to the lessee in manner hereinafter appearing .......... In the subsequent lease deed dated 10‑7‑1984 (Annex.A‑RA/15) in addition to the above, the following have been added as source of authority of the lease:‑‑ "(i) Resolution No.7 of the Cantonment Board, Multan dated 8‑3‑1983; (ii) Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Defence Letter No. 18/31/L/ML&C/78 dated 27‑10‑1983; and (iii) Letter No. 18/31/Lands/ML&C/78 dated 3‑5‑1984. Resolution No.37 of the Cantonment Board dated 6‑12‑1981 (RA/6) is reproduced as under:‑‑ " "To note ML & C Deptt. Letter No.18/31/L/AD(A)/ML&C/78 dated 18‑8‑1981 directing to cancel the auction proceedings and to reject/refund the highest bid amounting to Rs.1,65,000 offered by Malik Muhammad Majid regarding establishment of service station at a site measuring 30' x 90' out of Survey No. 85 Oasim Road, Multan Cann. In this connection it is pointed out that the site‑in-question was put to 12ublic auction with prior aynrov of the competent authority viz. ML&C Deptt. as per sanction conveyed vide Letter No. 18/31/L/AD(A)/ ML&C/78 dated 3‑9‑1978. The bid of Rs.1,65,000 is still very much on the high side is considered reasonable. A similar site auctioned on 2‑1‑1980 measuring 2800 S.ft. On Qasim Road detached Rs.1,10,

500. Relevant correspondence is placed on table. Resolution. The Board has considered the case and is of the view that it is in the financial interest of the Board if the ML & C Deptt. Revise its decision. The bid of Rs.1,65,000 offered in 1978 is still very much on the high side and the chances of having highest amount in case of re‑auction are not possible." Letter dated 4‑5‑1982 (RA/8) is again reproduced for ready reference: "To The Executive Officer, Multan Cantt. Subject: Multan Cantt.‑Establishment of Service Station at a Site Measuring 300 sq.yds. out of Survey No 85, Qasim Road. Ref: Your Letter No. 10/1/PW/II/475, dated 3‑4‑1982.

2. In this connection please refer to Ministry of Defence Letter No. 18/31/L/AD(A)/ ML&C/78/1629/ D‑12/ML&C dated 25‑4‑1982.

3. All the essential formalities will be completed on priority basis. (Sd.) (Ijaz‑ul‑Haq Qureshi), Assistant Director (A). Tele: No.62183 Copy to: DDML&C, Lahore. Resolution No.7 dated 8‑3‑1983 (RA/11) "To consider an application dated 15‑11‑1982 in Schedule V of the CLA Rules, 1937 from Mr. Muhammad Majid Malik lessee of land/plot Survey 85(part), Qasim Road, Multan Cantt. Requesting for leasing out a plot measuring 103.119 sq. meters by private treaty for the construction of a Store Room. The adjoining site measuring 300 sq. yards has been leased out to the applicant in Schedule VIII of the CLA Rules, 1937 for commercial purpose pursuant to Government of Pakistan Ministry of Defence Letter No.18/31/L/AD(A)/ML&C/ 78/1629/D‑12/82 dated 25‑4‑1982. The land is classified as Class "C" under the management of the Cantt. Board, Multan. The site has been inspected by the P.C.B. Resolution: Approved. Sanction of the competent authority may be obtained,' Letter dated 27‑10‑1983 (RA/13), "To The Executive Officer, Multan, Cantonment. Subject: Multan Cantt. Grant of land measurin 103 119 sq. meters for Construction of Store Room. Ref. Your Letter No. 10/ 1 /PW/2826, dated 11 / 10/ 1983.

2. In the circumstances stated sanction is hereby conveyed to the following measures in Multan Cantonments:‑‑ (i) Segregation of an area measuring 103.119 sq. meters out of Survey 85 reducing its area from 10977.20 sq. yds to 10853.67 sq.yds. (9074.75 sq. meters). The area so segregated will be re classified from "C" to "B‑3". (ii) Merger of the area measuring 103.119 sq. meters referred to in (i) above in the area of Survey No.85‑A and increasing the area of the same accordingly. (iii) Amendment of existing lease in respect of Survey No.85/A reflecting the additional ground rent of Rs.4,950, premium of Rs.49,500 for the extended area for the unexpired period of the original lease. The lessee will also pay development charges at Rs.35 per sq. meter for the extended area.

3. Relevant entries in the GLR will be amended on completion of essential formalities.

4. Sch. V is returned. (Sd.) (Khadim Hussain Chaudhry), Assistant Director (Lands). Tel. 62185 Copy to.‑‑The DDML & C, Lahore Region, Lahore Cantt." Letter dated 3‑5‑1984 (RA/14), "Corrigendum This Deptt. Letter No.18/3/Lands/ML&C/78 dated 27th Oct. 1983 on the subject of Multan Cantt. Grant of land measuring 103.119 sq. meters for construction of Store Room is amended as under:‑‑ Sub‑para. (iii) of para. 2 lines 2 and 3. . . For "Rs.4,950 read "Rs.1,856 for "Rs.49,500. read "Rs.18,560 (Sd.) (Khadim Hussain Chaudhry), Assistant Director (Lands). Tel. 62185." Meaning thereby the scope of these lease deeds could not be taken out from the ambit of the said Resolutions and the referred letters of the Ministry of Defence. If any matter requires interpretation/clarification regarding these lease deeds, we will have to see these documents. A bare perusal of the same fully establishes that the purpose for which the area‑in‑question was given on lease was, "establishment of a Service Station and construction of a Store Room" and the word "commercial use" incorporated in lease deeds shall have to be interpreted with reference thereto. The purpose shall remain the same as mentioned in these Resolutions and letters i.e. a Service Station and Store Room. .

17. Examining this matter with a different angle, admittedly lessor is the President of Pakistan and the lessees are the appellants. The lease deeds were executed on behalf of the President of Pakistan by the Cantonment Executive Officer. One can safely say that his status (Cantonment Executive Officer) is that of an agent/representative/attorney of the lessor (Ref. Rule 28 of CLA Rules and Notification No.F 215/42 C & G (Judicial) dated 16th July, 1943). It cannot be disputed that if an attorney/representative/agent does anything beyond the instructions given by the principal, the same shall, in no case, be binding upon him (principal). If at all the words, "commercial use" incorporated in clause 1(5) of the lease deeds is allowed to give a wider meaning in the context of erecting a commercial plaza, then this shall be against the spirit of the instruction of the principal. Even if there is any sanction/approval of building plan, the same ‑would be of no avail as the purpose of lease to us by all means was that of establishment of a Service Station and Store Room.

18. The following are most significant features of the matter‑in‑issue which bring heavy clouds to the bona fide of the appellants as well as the concerned responsible officials of the Cantonment Board:‑‑‑ (A) This first lease deed (Annexure K‑RA/10) was executed on 16‑10‑1982 after the confirmation of the auction in favour of the appellants vide sanctioning letter dated 25‑4‑1982 (RA/7) for, "establishment of Service Station". Strange enough two months prior to the execution of the lease dated 16‑10‑1982, the appellants allegedly submitted their building plans for construction of a Service Station to the Cantonment Board for its approval and as per Resolution No.5 of the Cantonment Board dated 15‑8‑1982, the same were rejected and the appellants were, "asked to utilize the site for commercial purpose viz. Show‑Room, Shop/Office etc. and submit fresh building plans". There appears to be no occasion at all to submit building plan for approval before the execution of the lease deed. The words used in clause 1(5) of the lease deed, "in accordance with plan or plans to be approved in writing by the Cantonment Board .." leave no doubt at all that the plans for ‑the construction for approval were to be submitted after the execution of the lease deed. Exact words of clause 1(5) are reproduced: "1(5). Within twenty‑four calendar months next after the date of those presents at his own cost to erect and finish fit for commercial use on the premises hereby demised a building for commercial purpose except hotel, cinema and petrol pump together with all necessary sewer drains and other appurtenances in accordance with a plan or plans to be approved in writing by the Cantonment Board under the provisions of the Cantonments Act and

" It appears to be a calculated move to extend undue benefit to the appellants, obviously being ultimate beneficiaries they are a party to this design. (B) It can not be ignored that the Cantonment Board vide its Resolution No.5 dated 15‑8‑1982 (RA/9) changed the purpose of the lease and allowed the appellants to construct a commercial building but this Resolution does not find mention in the lease deeds. Had the purpose been changed in a bona fide lawful manner, this Resolution should have been mentioned in the lease deeds alongwith the above‑referred Resolutions and letters. (C) As per Resolution No.5 dated 15‑8‑1982, Cantonment and allegedly rejected the building plans of the appellants for constructing a Service Station on the ground that the same would adversely affect the beauty of the Shopping Centre of the Cantonment Board. But strange enough, what has been excluded from construction shown in the lease deed is, "except hotel, cinema and petrol pump" (Ref. Clause 1(5) of the lease deed). Why, the Service Station, has not been added to it? meaning thereby, appellants were given a free hand to construct whatever they liked in the shape of, "a building for commercial use" including a Service Station. By not mentioning the Service Station, alongwith the hotel, cinema and petrol pump; the Cantonment Board itself has negated its own said Resolution, and it leads to an irresistible inference that the reasons mentioned in the said 'Resolution for changing the purpose of lease, were nothing but used as a pretext for camouflaging the "vested interest" of all the concerned involved in the matter. (D) a mentioning tter dated 4‑5‑1982 in the lease deed is also with ulterior motive as this letter is only a reminder to the Cantonment Board to act upon the sanctioning Letter dated 25‑4‑1982 (RA/7), which should have been mentioned in the deeds‑in‑question as the source of authority, but purposely omitted. (E) It is also pertinent to note that the appellants obtained another piece of land on lease through "private treaty" for the purpose of construction of a Store‑Room but this purpose does not find mention in the subsequent lease deed. It does not appeal to the reason that a piece of land, bad been acquired for a particular purpose, why the same was not incorporated in the lease deed. This is also glaring instance of mala fide. The arguments of learned counsel for the appellants that such a modification/alteration of purpose of lease is in line with the letter dated 24‑3‑1980 (Annex.P) issued by the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi which provided guidelines to determine the nature of commercial use of the land to be leased, Though at the top of it, word "confidential" has been mentioned yet we are inclined to take note of it with reference to the argument of learned counsel for. the appellants. A perusal of this letter shows that this has been issued, "in order to improve availability of residential/commercial accommodation in the Cantonments and to rationalize determination of market price of old grants/leased land for sub division or conversion into new leases during a year, .......... (a) The different terms referred to in the succeeding paragraphs will have the following meaning:‑‑ , (i) ........... (ii) .......... (iii) Commercial‑I.‑‑Use of the land for commercial activity or structure other than those specified for commercial‑II below. (iv) Commercial‑II.‑‑Use of the land for a hotel (of any standard) restaurant, petrol pump, service station, cinema, workshop, industry of any kind, multi‑storeyed structure (i.e. a building or structure of more than two storeys) or for such other activity or structure as may be specified by the Government from time to time. (v)......... (vi)........ If we go by the term "Commercial‑II" used in this letter, it means the appellants could have used the land even for a workshop and industry of any kind as only the construction of Petrol Pump, Cinema and Hotel had been prohibited. To us, mentioning different types of commercial activities distinctly in this term (Commercial‑II) suggests that use of the land (to be given on lease) must also be specified in clear terms in the instruments of lease. Thus, the words "commercial use" incorporated in the lease deeds‑in -question appear to be vague with reference to this term (Commercial‑II) and mentioning of these words i.e. commercial use in the lease deeds‑in-question again indicates the ulterior motive of the appellants and the officials of the Cantonment Board sitting at the helm of affairs (then). They cannot seek refuge under this letter for their acts not done in good faith. Even a change of commercial activities from one class to the other has been shown to be dependant upon certain conditions as is evident from the contents of this letter incorporated in clause (ii) and the same were not fulfilled. So this letter is of no help at all to advance the case of the appellants.

19. The argument of learned counsel for the appellants to the effect that no loss to the public exchequer has at all been caused by modifying the purpose of lease as the bid of the appellants in the year 1978 at Rs.1,65,000 was far higher than that of the market value determined by the District Collector. We have noticed that tile site‑in‑question on lease was auctioned in the year 1978 for establishing a Service Station and the purpose of lease has been changed to a commercial building in August, 1982 on the ground that the Cantonment Board was itself erecting a commercial plaza and construction of a Service Station would impair its beauty. Within this span of time particularly when the commercial activity in the shape of commercial plaza was spreading, the market value of the land in question, we are sure, must have been increased considerably/enormously. It is also worth to be noticed that the purpose of establishing a Service Station being a limited commercial activity fetched a bid of Rs.1,65,000 in the year 1978, the changed purpose being a wider attractive commercial activity in the shape of commercial building in the year 1982, naturally would have attracted more persons to get this piece of land at a highly increased competitive rate, provided the same had been auctioned fairly and honestly in accordance with law. This is quite understandable that the price of the land also depends upon the use of the same. Here we may refer to a letter of appellant Malik Muhammad Majid requesting to reduce the rate of premium for the added land obtained by him through "private treaty". It has been mentioned in his letter (Annex.RA/12), "it is pointed out that the subject piece of land is being taken for construction of a store room and not for exploitation of commercial purpose". This letter amply suggests that the commercial purpose fetches more price. 19‑A. A legal right in the words of Salmond, "is an interest recognized and protected by a rule of right". It is an interest respect of which is a duty and disregard of which is a wrong. Infringement of which can be remedied through a process of law. A legal cover shall always be provided to all such rights accrued/secured without committing any foul play. The Cantonment Board or its Executive Officer could not be‑shown to be blessed with any authority with regard to modifying/changing the purpose of lease‑in -question. We are convinced that the change of purpose of the lease took place in a clandestine manner and with ulterior motive to promote the "vested interest" of the beneficiaries particularly those of the appellants. Their conduct cannot be said to be above‑board. In all the judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellants, the conduct of the party who approached the High Court in it's Constitutional jurisdiction was neither a subject‑matter nor the same was under a dispute. That is why it has been repeatedly held that a notice was "must" before taking any action detrimental to their rights. We would emphasize that "right" is the "legal right" and the rules of locus poenitentiae and promissory estoppel shall also help the persons equipped with the "legal right", who have hands unsmeared with malice. In the judgment "1998 SCMR 2268" (Messrs Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager, Quaid‑e‑Azam International Airport, Karachi and others) cited by learned counsel for the appellants though it was held that the requirements mentioned in section 3 of the Ordinance, 1965 were not complied with by the Government, yet the relief under the Constitution was declined as the conduct of the appellants was not above‑board. In a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in 2000 SCMR 907 (Abdul Haque Indhar and others v. Province of Sindh through Secretary Forest, Fisheries and Livestock Department, Karachi and 3 others) cited by learned counsel for the respondents, rules of "audi alteram partem" and ."locus poenitentiae" have been very ably and elaborately dilated upon. The facts of the said case were almost identical with the case in hand. In that case, the appellants initially obtained leasehold rights of temporary cultivation of forest in an auction for a period of five years, however, they managed to 30 years. This lease was later on cancelled holding the same as illegal and void. Letter of cancellation of the lease was challenged in the High Court of Sindh Bench Sukkur by filing a Constitutional petition which was dismissed and the Hon'ble Supreme Court maintained the dismissal order. Relevant portions are reproduced: "Learned counsel also contended that no notice was given to the petitioners before cancelling the lease vide order, dated 29th September, 1994 and the petitioners who have made huge investment to develop the land have been condemned unheard, as such on this score as well as the action of official respondents deserves to be declared without lawful authority. There is no cavil with the proposition that the principle of natural justice enshrined in maxim 'audi alteram partem' is always deemed to be embedded in the lease and even if there is no such specific or express provisions, it would be deemed to be one of the parts of the State because no adverse action can be taken against a person without providing right of hearing to him. But at the same time this principle cannot be deemed to be of universal nature because before invoking/applying this principle one has to specify that the persons against whom action is contemplated to be taken prima facie has a vested right to defend the action and in those cases where the claimant has no basis or entitlement in his favour he would not be entitled for protection of the principle of natural justice. To support this argument reliance is placed on the case of Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi v. Additional District and Sessions Judge/Returning Officer, N.A. 158 Naushero Feroze and others (1994 SCMR 1299)." "It may be noted that his Lordship Mr. Justice Ajmal Mian (as he then was) has concluded that principle of 'audi alteram partem' is to be read into the relevant provision of the action is to affect any vested right of a person. Further, adding to these reasons we would observe that if this rider is not placed for applying the principle of 'audi alteram partem" then in certain cases where the law demands that action must be taken promptly shall defeat the ends of justice and there is very likelihood that the object required to be achieved by an immediate action shall not be accomplished and in the meanwhile a person who has no vested right shall continue to enjoy the benefits of the deeds without any legal entitlement, It is also to be noted that it is his time to ensure that transaction between the individuals vis‑a‑vis the State are just, fair, open, honest and transparent. Therefore, action of individuals which is not honest and based on mala fides may not be allowed to exist merely for the reason that the principle of natural Justice was violated. As in the instant case initially petitioners obtained a temporary lease of Forest through auction for a period of 5 years and immediately thereafter successfully made an attempt to get the period of lease extended by 30 years without auctioning the land after the expiry of period of 5 Amm years in terms of Part II of the Martial Law Order 60 or under West Pakistan Delegation of Powers under Financial Rules because we are of the opinion that if for such long period the lease of Forestry is auctioned it would have fetched high auction price for the Forest Department. But to deprive the State petitioners anyhow managed extension of lease in their favour through good office of Chief Minister illegally. Therefore, such deeds on the part of the petitioners or the authority .who granted the sanction cannot be allowed to exist on the strength of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that action against the petitioners have been taken in violation of principle of natural justice " "We are also inclined to observe that in view of the circumstances of the case learned Division Bench of High Court of Sindh at Sukkur had rightly declined to grant discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan because jurisdiction conferred upon the Court under this Article of the Constitution cannot be exercised to perpetuate ill‑gotten gain as it has been held in the PLD 1973 SC 230 (Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others), Market Committee, Multan through its Administrator and another v. Muhammad Sabir (1995 SCMR 305) and Khiali Khan v. Haji Nazir and 4 others (PLD 1997 SC 304)." The other relevant case which' was advantageously referred to by learned counsel for the respondents is "PLJ 1999 Supreme Court 2331 " (Ardeshir Cowasjee and 10 others v. Karachi Building Control Authority (KMC), Karachi and 4 others) it was categorically held that no perpetual rights can be gained on the basis of an illegal order. The facts of the said case are that the sanction was given for a revolving restaurant but somehow in the lease deed it was mentioned as commercial. The sanction was given on 9th of July, 1976. The contractors started high‑rise building some time in June, 1993 according to the alleged approved plan. In this case a citizen approached the High Court through a Constitutional petition which was dismissed by observing, "that the plot was allotted as a commercial plot and thus there was no bar to the construction of building". This decision was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was set aside. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that, "the High Court should have decided the broader issue namely whether the approval of the plan for high‑rise building on the building was legal or not". Rule of "locus poenitentiae" was vehemently pleaded by the builders. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while referring to a judgment printed in "PLD 1992 Supreme, Court 207" (The Engineer‑in‑Chief Branch through Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and another v. Jalaluddin) observed that, "approval of the plan against the original sanction was illegal". Ultimately it was ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that, "the structure constructed be removed except what can be utilized for revolving restaurant". These judgments do lend support to the case of the respondents.

20. It is also well‑settled that rule of promissory estoppel cannot be taken as a defence by a party, "which has indulged in fraud or collusion for obtaining some benefits under the representation, cannot be rewarded by enforcement of the promise", and, "no agency or authority can be held bound by a promise or representation not lawfully extended or in yen". These limitations to the doctrine of promissory estoppel duly described in the case N of "Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce v. Salla‑ud‑Din and 3 others" (PLD ' 1991 Supreme Court 546), are attracted to the facts of the instant case. Without going deep further into the niceties of the other submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we after having examined the case carefully and critically in the above scenario, are fully convinced that the Cantonment Board, Multan did not have any lawful authority to change the purpose of the lease from establishing a Service Station to a commercial building without getting the prior approval/sanction of the Federal Government, thus the alleged sanction of the building plan by the Cantonment Board and the construction on the basis thereof by the appellants were not blessed with any legal sanctity. We are also convinced that the officers of the concerned department dealing with this matter in the crucial period and the appellants were in league with each other to get their ulterior motive served and whose conduct also having not been found above‑board, cannot be encouraged by showing any indulgence in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, as it would amount to give d premium to their designs aimed at gains not warranted under the law and well‑settled principles of equity.

21. The upshot of the above discussion is that the ultimate result of the dismissal of the writ petition (though on different grounds) is maintained by dismissing this appeal, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

22. Before parting with the judgment, we would like to add as under:‑‑ (i) If the respondents intend to keep the present building as it is, in their own use, the appellants may recover the actual cost of construction of the same in accordance with law; (ii) in case the respondents intend to demolish the present structure, the appellants shall be given a period of two months to remove the superstructure; and (iii) the articles taken .by the respondents at the time of taking the possession of the building‑in‑question, shall be immediately returned to the appellants with reference to the inventory prepared by a learned counsel appointed by this Court. S.A.K./M‑1071/L Order accordingly.