P L D 1975 Lahore 741 (PLP)

Muhammad Akram Chaudhry, petitioner, was uprooted from his home in the District of Jullunder in India in 1947 when he migrated to Pakistan and settled in Chak No. 213/RB (Moran), Tehsil and District Lyallpur. He passed his Matriculation Examination from the Muslim High School, Tariqabad, Lyallpur, University of the Punjab in 1952. The petitioner filed a claim under the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act of 1956. It was verified by the Claims Authorities. The petitioner was issued a Compensation Book No.23110/2210 by the Deputy Settlement Commis sioner, Centre-II, Lyallpur. The Compensation Book showed a deferred amount of Rs.10,800 payable to the petitioner. On behalf of the petitioner who had gone to U. K. and acquired British nationality in 1961, W-Form: was submitted by his uncle, General Attorney, for the payment of the, deferred amount. This application was vetted and, after necessary, verification, a cheque was drawn in favour of the petitioner. However, payment was withheld by the Settlement Commissioner (Claims) on 4-6-1971 on the ground that the petitioner "is neither a citizen of Pakistan nor is residing therein, as such he was not a "displaced person" as defined in section 2 (3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 (Act XXVIII of 1958), therefore, he do!% not become entitled for the payment of the compensation." Petitioner submitted a representation against the aforesaid order but it was also rejected on 8.4-1972.

2. The petitioner has filed a petition under Article 201 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 praying that the orders of the respon dent authorities, refusing to make the payment, have been passed without lawful authority and are of no legal effect.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the res pondent authorities have misinterpreted the definition of a "displaced, person", as given in the Act XXVIII of 1958. The definition as given in., section 2 (3) of the Act is to the following effect: " `Displaced person' means any person who, on account of the setting, up of the Dominions of Pakistan and India or on account of civil disturbances or the fear of such disturbances in any area now forming part of or occupied by India, has, on or after the first day of March 1947, left, or been displaced from, his place of residence in such area and has subsequently become a citizen of Pakistan, or is residing therein and includes any person who, being a resident of any territory outside India, is for that reason unable to manage, supervise or control any property belonging to him in India or in any area occupied by India, and also includes the successors-in-interest of any such. person." The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it is quite clear that the above-mentioned definition connotes that that person is a displaced person who on account of setting up of the Dominions or on account of fear of disturbances in any area now forming part of India has on or after the first day of March 1947, left or been displaced from his place of residence in such area and has subsequently become a citizen of Pakistan or is a resident therein. The petitioner actually as a small child, left with his parents his home in India in 1947, migrated to Pakistan and settled in Chak. No. 213/RB. Lyallpur. He passed his Matriculation Examination from the Muslim High School, Lyallpur. He filed his claim under the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act of 1956 which was verified in due course and was also issued a Compensation Book. These facts make it quite obvious that the petitioner falls within the definition of a "displaced person". More over, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that what was to be paid to the petitioner is a compensation for the losses and sufferings undergone in 1947. Now that compensation cannot be withheld on the ground that many years later, the petitioner had gone out for making his living elsewhere. The compensation had become due to him after verification of his claim and on the enactment of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Re habilitation) Act, 1958. and, it would not affect his rights if it had taken long time for the Department to make the actual payment. It is not the fault of the petitioner that the Department took long time to discharge its obligations, and, for the indolence of the Department, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his vested rights.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that by acquiring British nationality in 1961, the petitioner has not forfeited his rights in Pakistan. Section 14 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 provided, in the first instance, in subsection (1) that "Subject to the provisions of this section, if any person is a citizen of Pakistan under the provisions of this Act and is at the same time a citizen or national of any other country, he shall, unless he makes a declaration according to the laws of that other country, renounc ing his status as citizen or national thereof, cease to be a citizen of Pakistan." Subsection (3) to the section was added by the Pakistan Citizen ship (Amendment) Act, 1972, which provided that "Nothing in subsection (1) shall apply, or shall be deemed ever to have applied at any stage, to a person who being or, having at any time been, a citizen of Pakistan, is also the citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or of such other coun tries as the Federal Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify in this behalf." The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that although subsection (1) of section 14 provided that if a person, who is a citizen of Pakistan, becomes a citizen of any other country, he shall cease to be a citizen of Pakistan, but, by the addition of subsection (3) with retros pective effect that "subsection (1) shall not apply or shall be deemed to have applied at any stage to a person who. being a citizen of Pakistan, also becomes a citizen of the United Kingdom", the cessation of citizenship of Pakistan shall not occur if he acquires United Kingdom nationality. Conse quently, it is urged that the petitioner's obtaining the U.K. nationality does not detract from his being a citizen of Pakistan, and, also that he does not become disentitled to property, or money, which has become payable to him.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that the petitioner could have lost citizenship rights only if he had been deprived from citizenship under section 16 of the Citizenship Act of 1951 by the Federal Government, or, if he had renounced his citizenship under section 14-A of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951. It is submitted that the petitioner had not been deprived of his citizenship rights by the Federal Government under section 16 of the Act, nor, the petitioner had renounced his citizenship in the manner prescribed under section 14-A under the Act. In this view of the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner still retains his citizenship of Pakistan, and, is, therefore, entitled to all his rights and privileges. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, further; submitted that, even if it were to be that the petitioner had lost his citizenship of Pakistan, then too, he is entitled to receive the compensation which had become payable to him at the time when, undoubtedly, he was a citizen of Pakistan. Loss of nationality, even if it were to occur which the learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically repudiates, could not operate retrospectively to denude him of his rights and privileges which had accrued to him when he had held the nationality.

6. The definition of the "displaced persons" as given in section 2 (3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, is quiet clear to cover the case of the petitioner as "displaced person", when he had/ abandoned his home and hearth in India in 1947 and come over to Pakistani where he settled. He, being a displaced person and found, after verification entitled to compensation, the payment thereof cannot be withheld, if, later on, lie had proceeded abroad to look after for fresh pastures. It is also clear that even if there were a cessasion of nationality by acquisition of United Kingdom nationality in 1961, then too, the right to compensation which had vested in him by operation of law earlier would not cease to be operative with retros pective effect. Of course, it is not being held that the petitioner had lost his nationality of Pakistan. Both under the Pakistan Citizenship Act of 1951 as well as under the British Nationality Act, 1948, as amended, a Pakistani is entitled to retain dual nationality. In these circumstances, there was no occasion to refuse to make the payment of the compensation to the petitioner, to which be had become entitled under the law. For the reasons given above, this petition is accepted and the respondent authorities are directed to make the payment in accordance with law. The petitioner shall have his costs from the respondent. S. A. H. Petition accepted.