2000 PLP 2709 (YLR)

Mian Shahid lqbal, A.A.‑G. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th October, 1999. This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petition No. 9483 of 1996, W.P. No.20666 of 1996, W.P. No. 12757 of 1996, W.P.No.12758 of 1996, W.P. No.12759 of 1996, W.P. No.12760 of 1996, W.P. No.12761 of 1996, W.P. No.12762 of 1996, W. P. No. 12763 of 1996, W. P. No. 12764 of 1996, W.P. No.12765 of 1996 and W.P.No.12766 of 1996 in which common question fall for determination.

2. The petitioners in these petitions are in possession of the accommodation attached to F.C. College, Lahore which had been taken over by the Government under the provisions of Martial Law Regulation No. 118 of 1972. The dispute with respect to ownership of the property in question arose between Board of Foreign Mission of Presbyterian Church in the United States of America and the Province of Punjab. The said Church was obliged to file a suit for a declaration in the Civil Court. A similar suit was also filed by each of the petitioners. All these suits were decreed by the trial Court on 31‑10‑1992 and it was declared that the Church was owner of the property measuring 108 acres, 1 Kanal, 8 Marlas and 103 sq. ft. and the mutation attested in favour of the respondent‑Government was of no legal effect. It was further held that the petitioners were licensees under the Church. Aggrieved by this judgment the Province of Punjab and Principal, F.C. College, Lahore filed appeals which were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 2‑4‑1994. This decree of the learned Additional District Judge was not challenged any further and as such attained finality. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that despite the aforesaid decrees and judgment having been passed against the respondent the rent is being deducted from the salary of the petitioners payable by F.C. College to them.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as the decree of the Additional District Judge has become final the question of title of the property as also its occupation by the petitioner stands finally determined and as such the respondent Government has no locus standi either to interfere in possession of the petitioners who are licensees of the Church or to charge any rent by deducting the same from the amoluments payable to the petitioners. Mian Shahid Iqbal, learned Assistant Advocate General has also been heard. He submits that the respondents are entitled to deduct maintenance charges from the salaries of the petitioners who are employees of F.C. College.

4. It is common ground between the parties that the College as well as all its attached property was owned by the Board of Foreign Mission of Presbyterian Church in the United States of America which was a foreign trust registered in Pakistan. By virtue of Martial Law Regulation No.118 of 1972 the College was taken over. The dispute subsequently arose between the owners of the property taken over and the Government as to whether on taking over the educational institution the Government also becomes owner of the property. This question was finally decided against the Government by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America v. The Government of the Punjab and another (1987 SCMR 1197). It necessarily follows, therefore, that the respondents have no right in respect of the property in possession of the petitioners which vests in the Church.

5. Be that as it may, the learned Assistant Advocate‑General is not in a position to deny that a decree already stands passed against the Government of Punjab which was maintained in appeal by ‑the Additional District Judge whereby his judgment and decree in which the Church has been declared to be the owner and the petitioner as its licensee, was affirmed. In view of this decree the respondents have no right to deduct any rent from the salary of the petitioners as the respondent is neither owner nor the landlord of the premises as has been held by the Civil Court. The contention of the learned Assistant Advocate‑General that the respondent is entitled to deduct the maintenance charges is not well‑founded. There is no agreement between the parties pursuant to which the respondent can deduct maintenance charges. Furthermore, the deduction is being made from the salary of the petitioners on account of the occupation of the property and not as charges for maintenance. In view of the above, these petitions are allowed and the action of the respondent in deducting rent/charges for use and occupation from the salary of the petitioners is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. No order as to costs, Q.M.H./M.A.K./J‑13/L Petitions allowed