P L D 1969 Lahore 1066 (PLP)

(b) The purchase price shall be recovered in fifty half yearly instalments‑ including principal and interest 4% per annum. (c) If, the purchaser fails to pay two successive instalments, the Deputy Commissioner, Chairman District Evacuee Trust Committee concerned with the formal approval of the Board shall cancel the sale and may forfeit whole or part of the money already paid subject to such directions as may be given by the Board. (d) If the purchaser so desires, he can pay the price in the lump sum. (e) Thin purchaser shall not, without the sanction in writing of the Board alienate any portion of the land sold, before he had paid the entire purchase price, the purchaser shall be entitled to claim the refund of the amount paid by them. Alternatively he may be given proprietary rights over the (sic) land the amount of price paid by them. (3) It is to be noted that the "Scheme" is to be made applicable to rural agricultural trust land only and not the urban agricultural land. (4) The question whether the "Scheme" should be made applicable to persons other than J & K displaced persons has received careful consideration. It has been decided that the (sic) to J & K displaced persons only and not to other displaced persons. (5) It has also been decided in consultation with the Chief Settlement Commissioner that J & K displaced persons who are occupying urban evacuee property including houses and shops may be allowed to purchase such property on the same terms and conditions on which rural land is being sold to them. I am accordingly to request that the Board may kindly prepare a Scheme on the lines indicated in this letter as early as possible and submit the same to the Ministry for approval." On receipt of the above letter the Secretary, Evacuee Property Trust Board, Government of Pakistan, Lahore, addressed letter No. XIII/2(60) 1703 dated the 11th of May 1963, to all Commis sioners etc., and conveyed the decision of the Board for the sale of the land to Jammu and Kashmir displaced persons on the terms and conditions (a) to (f) as mentioned in the letter of Central Government. The Secretary emphasised that the scheme was to be made applicable to rural agricultural trust land only and will neither apply to the urban agricultural land nor to any other person except Jammu and Kashmir refugees. The sub ordinate Trust Committees were directed to implement the Scheme and to furnish a fortnightly statement to the office of the Board by the 5tb and 20th of each month. The Board also fixed a date for the submission of the application by the Jammu and Kashmir refugees for the purchase of evacuee trust agricultural land as 29th of February 1964.

3. The petitioners wanted to avail of the above‑mentioned instructions and in that behalf they moved several applications from 1903 onwards and last of them was made by them on the 19th of April 1967. It was rejected by the Secretary, Evacuee District Committee, Gujranwala on the 2nd of May 1967 and they were informed that there were no provisions under the scheme according to which the land under lease could be sold at the rate of Rs. 8 per unit in their favour. The petitioners challenged this decision before the Chairman, Evacuee Property Trust Board, Lahore, and prayed that they should be given the benefit of the above‑mentioned scheme but that application has also been rejected on the 5th of October 1967. Since no other adequate remedy is available against the order of the Chairman the petitioners have come to this Court under Article 98 of the Constitution for the enforcement of their alleged right under' the Scheme.

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the scheme clearly makes provision for the sale of the land ii: favorer of Jammu and Kashmir refugees and it makes difference whether they are allottees in occupation or the lessces in occupation. His emphasis was that the words used in para. 2 of the Scheme that rural agricultural trust land allotted to and in the occupation of Jammu and Kashmir dis placed persons may be interpreted to mean as land allotted to or in the occupation of Jammu and Kashmir displaced persons and the petitioners being lessee are in its "occupation" and it makes no difference if it was not allotted to them as Jammu and Kashmir displaced persons.

5. On the other hand, the Departmental interpretation to these words was that this scheme was framed for the benefit of those Jammu and Kashmir refugees who were in occupation of the land as allottees of the Rehabilitation Department and the intention of the Central Government was that such displaced persons should not be disturbed and the land in their occupa tion should be sold in their favour according to the terms and conditions laid down in the scheme. It Boas further urged that if the intention of the Government was to allow all such persons who were refugee's from Jammu and Kashmir to buy the land from the Government under this Scheme there was nothing to prevent the Government to say that the Evacuee Trust land in possession of Jammu and Kashmir refugees should be sold to them on those terms and conditions and there was no necessity for using the words, `land allotted to and in occupation of Jammu and Kashmir refugees'.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent also placed on record a judgment of the Supreme Court in C. A. No. 70 of 1967 decided on the 29th of November 1966, in which the validity of the resolution of the Central Government has been considered. He urged that their Lordships have hold that there was nothing under the provisions of the relevant statutes and the Scheme framed thereunder which would indicate that the trust properties q held for public purpose of a religious or charitable nature could be transferred to evacuees or displaced persons under general scheme of settlement of such persons.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners tried to distinguish the above decision of the Supreme Court on the ground that the appellants before the Supreme Court were refugees from Ludhiana of East Punjab while the petitioners are refugees from Jammu and Kashmir and the principles laid down in the authority cited by the learned counsel for the Department will not be attracted to the present case. This contention appears to be wholly devoid of force. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have examined in detail the effect of the decision b of Central Cabinet dated the 29th of June 1961, on the basis of which the above‑mentioned letters were issued by the Central Government to the Secretary, Evacuee Property Trust Board, who in turn has issued directions to its subordinate committees for the disposal of evacuee trust properties in favour of Jammu and Kashmir refugees. This decision has been set‑at‑naught by the Supreme Court with the observations that it does not have the force of overriding the provisions of the law relating to the management and administration of evacuee trust properties. In this context I think it will be useful to reproduce the following observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court which, in my opinion, completely seal the fate of the petitioners' case:‑ "Under these provisions, it appears, that trust properties created for the maintenance of religious or charitable institutions can only vest in the Board for purposes of maintenance and management and the only disposal thereof that is possible is an act of good management. It is clear, therefore, that at no stage the appellants had any legal right to purchase these properties as they wished to do. Their application to the Chairman of the Trust Board, Lahore, was, as it now appears from their statement in writ petition, for permission to purchase the properties at an evaluation and on an instalment basis and they never applied f6r obtain ing leases of such properties to the Chairman of the Board and decided to make in exercise of his powers of management nor does it appear that they ever complained to the Chairman of the Board that they being sitting allottees of the land should not be evicted from the land so that they should be given preferential rights to obtain them on lease."

8. In my opinion the case of the petitioners is worse than that of the refugees from Ludhiana which was under consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court. They are not sitting allottees of the land in dispute and had in fact obtained the land in their occupation on lease from the trust for a fixed term in auction. May be that they are Jammu and Kashmir refugees. They are not entitled to purchase this property on evaluation and instalment basis.

9. The appeal of the petitioners to the Chairman, Evacuee Property Trust Board, for the purchase of this land was also misconceived as the Chairman had no such power to sell this property in their favour and for this observation of mine I also find support from the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case quoted above. The judgment of the Supreme Court is the law declared and is binding upon me. I, therefore, see no justification to hold that the petitioners can purchase this land on instalment basis from the Board.

10. I was not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the words "allotted to and in occupation of Jammu and Kashmir refugees" should be read as "allotted to or in occupation of Jammu and Kashmir refugees". C Obviously there appears to be no justification for such a con struction of these words. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the department that these instructions were in fact intended to provide protection to those Jammu and Kashmir refugees who were sitting allottees of the evacuee trust properties and the idea was not to deprive them of their subsistance. However, since the entire scheme has been knocked down by the Supreme Court the interpretation of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted on any valid grounds.

11. It will not be out of place to mention in this context that the letter of the Central Government which has been relied upon by the petitioners, required the Trust Board to prepare a scheme on the lines indicated in that letter as early as possible and submit the same to the Ministry for approval. Nothing was brought to my notice to prove that such a scheme was ever framed by the Board and submitted to the Central Government for approval except the letter of the Secretary of the Board dated the 11th of May 1963. In my opinion the Secretary of the Board had no power or authority to communicate the terms and conditions (a) to (f) of the letter of the Central Government to the subordinate Trust Committees unless a proper scheme had been prepared on the lines mentioned in the letter of the Central Government. There is nothing in the letter of the Secretary that such a scheme had ever been prepared and approved by the Central Government. In this view of the matter also the petitioners cannot take any advantage of the com munication of 11th of May 1963 which has been addressed by the Secretary to the subordinate Trust Committees.

12. The upshot of the above discussion is that both the writ petitions have no merit and the same are hereby dismissed. The stay order issued by this Court is vacated but there will be no order as to costs. A. E./S. A. H. Petitions dismissed.