P L D 1957 (W (PLP)

MUHAMMAD BAKHSH, J.

Facts leading to this petition for a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ are as follows :- On 25th November 1950, the rent Controller, Karachi requisitioned the ground floor of the bungalow in suit. This bungalow originally belonged to one 'Allahditta Sheikh. The petitioner, who is a doctor, badly needed accommodation and he wanted to purchase this bungalow. He was getting possession of the first floor and as the ground floor had been requisitioned the landlord approached the Rent Controller for permission to sell the house to the petitioner. The petitioner was asked to give an undertaking that lie would abide by the terms and conditions laid down in the requisition order, and that being done on 5th November 1953, the Rent Controller gave a certificate that there was no objection to the proposed sale of the bungalow by the landlord in favour of the petitioner. On 28th November 1953, the sale deed was executed and the petitioner went into the possession of the first floor. As he was a doctor and he required the accommodation on the ground floor also for the purpose of his dispensary, he made a represen tation to the authorities for the cancellation of the requisition order. On 9th October 1954 the petitioner was informed by the Assistant Secretary to the Government of Pakistan in the Ministry of Health and Works that the Government had been pleased to agree to de-requisition the ground floor of the said bungalow. After this, on 15th November 1954, the Chief Commissioner of Karachi actually de-requisitioned the said ground floor and directed that the possession thereof be handed over to the petitioner. All these orders are on the record. In spite of these orders the possession of the ground floor was not given to the petitioner and when he protested against it, he was informed by the same Assistant Secretary by his letter dated 2nd June 1955, that the Estate Officer was being asked to arrange that the premises should be vacated and respondent No. 3, a Government servant who was in occupation of the same, was to be shifted without the least possible delay. There after the petitioner made several attempts to get possession of the ground floor but no further action was taken. Then on 31st August 1955, the same Assistant Secretary informed the petitioner that on re-consideration of the case it had been decided that the premises in question would not be de-requisitioned for the present: Subsequently on 21st September 1955, the Estate Officer, Government of Pakistan, informed the petitioner that respondent No. 3 had been offered alternate accommodation but since further action on the subject had been suspended by the Ministry of Works, nothing further could be done. The petitioner hereafter approached the Authorities several times but he was not listened to. Ultimately being disappointed with these tactics of the respondents, he filed this petition for a Writ of mandamus on several grounds including some legal objections which are general to several other petitions. The facts as stated above have not been controverted but it has only been alleged by the respondents that the orders of the Government as well as of the Chief Commissioner of Karachi de-requisitioning the premises were only executive orders and did not entitle the petitioner to any rights. It was also alleged that the petitioner had no right to make such representations. We have heard the parties and we are definitely of the opinion that the respondents have contravened the provisions of law and also the principles of natural justice. It must bell remembered that the Rent Controller, Karachi requisitioned these buildings in Karachi and then placed them at the disposal of the Estate Officer. The Rent Controller himself is subordinate to the Chief Commissioner who is the Provincial Government in the matter. The orders of the Government and the Chief Commissioner, even if they be of executive nature, certainly entitle the petitioner to his rights. Section 11 of the Sind (Requisition of Land) Act, 1947'6 clearly lays down that while working the provisions of this Act. there will be as little interference with the avocations of life of the people and the enjoyment of property as possible. Unfortunately this mandatory provision of law is being completely ignored by the authorities that be. The petitioner who is a doctor can never be said to have purchased this bungalow for the purpose of investment. In fact, he has alleged that very serious cases of patients, acute and chronic, were coming to him and, being out of possession of the ground floor, he had to admit them into his private room which was bound to affect the health of the members of his family detrimentally. The orders having been withdrawn we cannot see any reason why the respondent No. 3 was not ejected from the premises and the petitioner allowed to carry on his avocation of life and also enjoy his property which he had purchased. Having de-requisitioned the premises once there was no reason for the authorities to cancel the order of de-requisition and restore the requisition order. We are also constrained to observe that this attitude taken by the respondents, especially when respondent No. 3 was offered alternate accommodation, causes the greatest hardship to the citizens of this country. Respondent No. 3 should have quietly walked out from the premises to the other accommodation which was offered. The mandatory provisions of section 11 having been violated, there is no alternative for us but to allow this petition and direct the issue of a- writ of mandamus as prayed for. The respondents to bear the costs of the petitioner. A. H. Writ granted.