1968 SCMR 369 (PLP)

S. A. RAHMAN, J.-The respondents to this petition are trans ferees of evacuee property which was liable to some Municipal Taxes payable to the Municipal Committee, Mirpurkhas, for the period from 1954 to 31-3-1959. The transfer of the property was made to the respondents by order dated the 19th September 1959, as the result of an auction. The Municipal Committee, Mirpurkhas demanded the payment of the house tax amounting to Rs. 4,805/42 as arrears of tax from the respondent-transferees This claim was resisted on the ground that they were not liable to pay the taxes prior to the 1st of April 1959. The Municipal Com mittee resorted to coercive action against them and the respon dents appealed to the Commissioner, under the provisions of the Municipal Ordinance. The Commissioner took the view that despite the evacuee property having been acquired by a Notifica tion under section 3 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, the charge of the taxes remained on the property and the occupiers, namely, the new transferees, were liable to pay it. This order was challenged by a petition under Article 98 of the Constitution, on behalf of the respondents, in the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench. A Division Bench of that Court allowed the petition and declared that any claim for arrears of the taxes, prior to the date of possession of the respondents, was without lawful authority. The parties were left to bear their own costs. The Chairman, Mirpurkhas Muni cipal Committee and the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division seek special leave to appeal from this order 'of the High Court. The question that calls for determination is as to the effect of the acquisition of the property in question by Government, under section 3 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilita tion) Act, 1958. It is conceded by Mr. Ali Ahmad Fazed, on behalf of the petitioners, that by virtue of a notification, issued under section 3 of the Act, the property now vests in the Central Government, free of all encumbrances. He, however, has contend ed before us that the taxes payable to the Municipal Committee are a charge on the property and that such a charge is not done away with by the acquisition of the property under section 3 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, In support of the position the learned Counsel has cited before us a decision of this Court reported as Muhammad Khan and others v. The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commis sioner and another (P L D 1962 S C 284). In this case it was held that mortgagees' rights of Pakistani citizens over evacuee property could not be acquired by a Notification under section 3 of the Act, as acquisi tion there under could only take place of evacuee property and such mortgagee rights would be non-evacuee property. The case cited does not appear to us to be pertinent in this case. Even if the Municipal Committee had a charge in respect of a Municipal tax, the charge, it is conceded, would not be a right in the property and therefore, does not constitute property. By the acquisition under section 3 of the Act, therefore, the charge disappears and the only remedy left to the Committee now is to ask the Central Government to frame rules under subsection (4) of section 3 of the Act to provide for the external to which and the manner in which the taxes are to be discharged from the pro ceeds of the property. This provision is to be given effect despite any other law to the contrary, by virtue of section 36 of the Act. The view that prevailed in the High Court therefore, that the Committee had no right to ask the respondents to pay the arrears of the tax pertaining to the period prior to the transfer in their favour, appears to be correct. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. (1) P L D 1962 S C 284