P L D 1967 Karachi 130 (PLP)

NOORUL ARFIN, J.‑This judgment will dispose of Petitions Nos. 283 of 1963 and 284 of 1963 brought under Article 98 of the Constitution against the order dated 14th March 1963 of Mr. A. R. Changez, Custodian of Evacuee Property, West Pakistan.

2. The property in dispute in Petition No. 283 of 1963 is a plot with building thereon bearing Sheet No. 4, Sheet No. R‑9. measuring 3,318.89 sq. yds. and situated on Queens Road, Karachi. The property was purchased by the Respondent No. 2, Mst. Kulsum Bai for Rs. 50,000 (rupees fifty thousand) by registered sale‑deed dated 23‑3‑1949.

3. Petition No. 284 of 1963 relates to plot and building thereon bearing Nos. 13‑A and 13‑C, Survey Sheet No. S. B. 6, measuring 2308 sq. yds. and situated on Dundas Street, Saddar Bazar, Karachi. It was purchased by Kulsum Bai from Lalchand on 24‑I 1‑48 for Rs. 1,50,000 (rupees one lakh fifty thousand).

4. Mst. Kulsum Bai is a resident and National of India. She purchased these properties through Mr. Abdullah Pir Muhammad, whom she appointed her attorney by a registered instrument dated 19‑12‑1947 executed at Bombay. This instrument empowered the attorney to purchase and manage properties on her behalf. It was in pursuance of this power that Mr. Abdullah Pir Muhammad purchased the two properties in dispute under the sale‑deeds mentioned above. In both these sale‑deeds, it was clearly stated that Mst. Kulsum Bai was residing at Bombay.

5. After purchasing these properties, Mr. Abdullah Pir Muhammad made two applications to the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property, Karachi for confirmation of the sales under section 16 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance (XV of 1949). These applications were accompanied by the copies of the power of attorney held by Mr. Abdullah Pir Muhammad from Mst. Kulsum Bai. By orders dated 23‑1‑1950, the Deputy Custodian confirmed these sales and also declared the two properties in question as non‑evacuee properties.

6. Sometime in 1962, Abdul Wali Ansari and Tahir Hussain Qureshi the petitioners respectively in petitions Nos. 283 and 284 of 1963, made applications to the Custodian of Evacuee Property for declaring the two properties in dispute to be evacuee properties. Abdul Wali Ansari is a tenant in the Queens Road property and Tahir Hussain Oureshi is a tenant in the Saddar property. The declaration that these two properties are evacuee properties was sought by the petitioners on the ground that the properties were being managed by Mr. Abdullah Pir Muhammad, whose authority or right so to do had not been accepted or approved by the Custodian.

7. Mr. Abdullah Pir Muhammad also made an application to the Additional Custodian of Evacuee Property for grant of a certificate to the effect that the power of attorney held by him from Mst. Kulsum Bai had been accepted and approved by the Deputy Custodian in the proceedings which resulted in the confirmation of the aforesaid sales.

8. The three applications were heard by Mr. A. R. Changez, the Custodian of Evacuee Property who, by his order on 14th March 1963, dismissed the applications of Abdul Wali Ansari and Tahir Hussain Qureshi and, accepting the application of Mr. Abdullah Pir Muhammad, directed that a certificate be granted to the effect that the power of attorney held by him had been accepted and approved in the confirmation proceedings. The learned Custodian took the view that inasmuch as the two sale‑deeds specifically stated that Mst. Kulsum Bai was residing at Bombay and further, as Mr. Abdullah Pir Muhammad had produced copies of the power of attorney with the applications for confirmation of the sales, it should be deemed that the Deputy Custodian had no objection to the management of the properties by the attorney. In this view of the matter, the learned Custodian held that the power of attorney should be deemed to have been accepted or approved by the Deputy Custodian in the confirmation proceedings. It is this order which is challenged in the two petitions before us.

9. The petitioner's case was argued by Mr. Z. H. Lari, the learned counsel for the petitioner Tahir Hussain Qureshi. Mr. Zaheeruddin, who appeared for Abdul Wali Ansari, adopted Mr. Lari's arguments. Mr. Lari based the petitioners' case on the contention that unless the authority of the agent to manage the property was specifically approved by the Custodian, the property would continue to be treated as evacuee property. There is no specific provision in the Evacuee Law making it incumbent for an attorney to apply for approval of his power of attorney. The necessity for such approval arises only by reason of the definition of "evacuee" contained in the Evacuee Law. Under section 2(2) of Ordinance XV of 1949 (which provision corresponds to section 2(2) of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, XII of 1957), "evacuee" means any person‑ (a) .. (b) (c) (ii) Whose property in Pakistan has ceased to be occupied, supervised or managed by any person or is being occupied, supervised or managed by a person (whether duly empowered in this behalf by him or otherwise) whose authority or right so to do on or after the aforesaid date has not been accepted or approved by the Custodian." It may also be noted that under section 16(2) of Ordinance XV of 1949 (corresponding to section 20(2) of tile Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, XII of 1957), application for confirmation of sales of evacuee property were permitted to be made not only by the transferees, but also by the agents of the transferees. It was as agent of the transferee. (The agency having been created by tile power of attorney executed at Bombay) that Mr. Abdullah Pir Muhammad made the applications for confirmation of transfers in favour of his principal.

10. The two sale‑deeds referred to above expressly stated that Mst. Kulsum Bai was residing at Bombay. It has also been noted that the applications for confirmation of the sales were accompanied by two copies of the power of attorney granted by Mst. Kulsurn Bai to Mr. Abdullah Pir Muhammad. This power of attorney empowered Mr. Abdullah Pir Muhammad to purchase and manage properties belonging to the respondent No.

2. Thus, the Deputy Custodian was seized of the facts that Mst. Kulsum Bai was resident in, and National of, India and that Mr. Abdullah Pir Muhammad was empowered to manage properties on her behalf in Pakistan. Notwithstanding this position, the Deputy Custodian, by his orders dated 23‑1‑1950, not only, confirmed the two sales but also declared the two properties to be non‑evacuees. It was in this view of the matter that the learned Custodian held that the authority of Abdullah Pir Muhammad to manage the properties had been accepted by the Custodian.

11. But Mr. Lari contended that to take a property out of the category of evacuee properties, tile power of attorney of the agent must be expressly approved. We have above referred to section 2(2) of Ordinance XV of 1949 and Act XII of 1957. The requirement prescribed by this provision of law is that the authority of the agent to manage a property should either be accepted or approved by the Custodian. It will be noted that two words are used together with regard to the agent's authority, and these words are "accepted" and "approved". "To approve" means to confirm authoritatively. If the Legislature had merely used the word "approved", one could have no hesitation to agree with Mr. Lari that express confirmation of the agent's authority to manage a property was necessary both under the Ordinance as Well as under the Act. But this word appears with the other word "accepted", and it would not be unreasonable to say that both the words were not intended to convey the came meaning. The word "accept" has been defined in Shorter Oxford English Dictionary to mean "to take or receive with consenting mind; to receive with favour". "To receive with favour" is something quite different from "to confirm authoritatively" which is the meaning of the word "approve". The use of the two words "approved" and "accepted" creates the impression that it is not necessary that the agent should be expressly aged authoritatively confirmed in his authority to manage the property. It would be sufficient compliance with the legal requirement if the agent's authority is recognized by the Custodian and this recognition need not be by an act of express confirmation of the authority, but may be evidenced by any act of the Custodian or by the course of conduct followed by the Custodian and his Department.

12. The purpose of this discussion is only to show that the view taken by the Custodian is a possible interpretation of section 2(2) of Ordinance XV of 1949 and Act XII of 1957. If this be the position, then can it be said that the learned Custodian has taken a view which is reasonably not possible? We cannot agree with Mr. Lari that the finding of the learned Custodian is so unreasonable as to justify interference by this Court under Article 98 of the Constitution. The fact that Mr. Pir Muhammad was allowed to make applications for confirmation of the sales as agent of Mst. Kulsum Bai; that no objection was ever raised by the Custodian's Department to the power of attorney which he held from his principal and copies of which were made available to the Department; that this power of attorney expressly empowered Pir Muhammad to manage Kulsum Bai's properties; and that the Deputy Custodian by his orders dated 23‑1‑1950 not only confirm the sales, but also declared the properties as non- evacuee could legitimately raise an inference that Mr. Pir Muhammad's authority to manage the properties of Mst. Kulsum Bai bad been recognized, or accepted, by the Custodian. If the Custodian says that Mr. Pir Muhammad's authority to manage the properties of Kulsum Bai had been accepted by him as early as 1950, it would then, in our opinion, be not open to us to hold that this authority was not so accepted. 13: Mr. Lari placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Nazar Ali v. Secretary, Ministry of Rehabilitation and others (P L D 1963 Kar. 575), wherein it was held that approval of the attorney's authority cannot be said to have been obtained indirectly if the attorney obtains confirmation of sale. Now the facts of this case were that tenants of the property in dispute in this case made an application to the Custodian to treat the property as evacuee property, as the power of attorney of the owner's agent had not been confirmed by the Custodian. The Custodian ordered an enquiry to be held by the Deputy Rehabilitation and Settlement Commissioner, Karachi who, by his order dated 14th July 1960, held that the property should be treated as evacuee property as the agent's authority to manage it had not been approved by the Custodian. The owner's application for approval of his agent's authority was rejected by the Custodian by his order dated 24th August 1960. This order was challenged in the High Court by a petition under the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1958, which petition was, however, dismissed by the High Court. But in this case there was no finding of the Custodian that the authority of the agent had been approved in the confirmation proceedings. Nor had the property in dispute been ever declared to be non‑evacuee property. On the contrary, the finding was that the authority had not been confirmed and it was this finding which was challenged before the High Court. In the instant case, however, we are required to interfere with the Custodian's finding. that Mr. Pir Muhammad's authority to manage Kulsum Bai's properties had been accepted as early as 1950. But we can interfere only if we come to the conclusion that this finding is not at all reasonably possible, to which view we cannot, however, subscribe.

14. Apart from what has been stated above, one serious objection to the maintainability of the two petitions is that the petitioners have no locus standi. They cannot be treated as aggrieved persons so as to entitle them to invoke the provisions of Article 98 of the Constitution for getting the two properties in question treated as evacuee properties. None of these petitioners has any vested right in any property. The petitioner Abdul Wali Ansari is one of the four tenants in the Queens Road property. The Saddar property has eight tenants, including the petitioner Tahir Hussain Qureshi. Neither he, nor Abdul Wali Ansari, have applied for transfer of any of these properties to them under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. It is, therefore, not understood as to what conceivable interest these persons could have in getting the two properties declared as evacuee properties. Mr. Lari, however, contended that as informers the two petitioners would be entitled to the transfer of the properties in respect of which each of them has given information with regard to their evacuee character. According to the learned counsel, the present petitions have been brought by these two persons as informers. But it has already been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Abida Khatoon v. Mian Ghulam Shabir (P L D 1964 S C 793), that there being no conceivable vested interest in the informant, any relief to him by writ was clearly inadmissible.

15. We are, therefore, of the view that neither the petitioners have made out any case for interference by us with the view taken by the learned Custodian, nor are they entitled to any relief under Article 98 of the Constitution. We, therefore, dismiss the two petitions and direct each of the petitioner to pay costs to the respondents. K.B.A. Petition dismissed.