Evacuee Trust Property

Right to fair hearing and fair trial necessitates that no one should be penalized by decision upsetting and afflicting his right or legitimate expectations unless he is given a fair chance to answer it and a fair opportunity to explicate / present the case

To enjoy protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is an inalienable right of every citizen

Purposefulness of Article 4 of the Constitution is to ascribe and integrate doctrine of equality before law or equal protection of law and no action detrimental to life and liberty of any person can be taken without due process of law

Principles of natural justice require that the delinquent should be afforded a fair opportunity to converge, explain and contest before he is found guilty and condemned

Principles of natural justice and fair-mindedness are grounded in philosophy of affording a right of audience before any detrimental action is taken

In the Constitution, right to fair trial has also become a fundamental right under Article 10-A of the Constitution

Principle of natural justice is grounded in astuteness and clear-sightedness of affording a right of audience before any prejudicial action is taken

This is an inescapable obligation of all judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authorities to ensure justice according to sagacity of law

Supreme Court set aside orders passed by High Court and Chairman Evacuee Trust Properties Board and remanded the matter to the Chairman Evacuee Trust Properties Board to decide the matter afresh after providing ample opportunity of hearing to parties

Appeal was allowed.

Under S. 8 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 the Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board has the power to decide whether any evacuee property is attached to a charitable, religious trust or institution

However, a property cannot be simply declared as evacuee trust without failing to provide any cogent reasoning for reaching such a conclusion

Moreover, where the property sought to be declared as evacuee trust, has already undergone successive transfers and lately vests in a third party pursuant to confirmation of approval by the Custodian, then the order declaring that property as evacuee trust property has to validly explain the reasoning for overturning the decision of Custodian who confirmed and validated the prior transfer

Evacuee trust authorities cannot presume that the property is automatically an evacuee trust property by simply stating it to be a 'Mandir" property

Cogent evidence has to be brought on record by the evacuee trust authorities in order to substantiate the stance that a property is an evacuee trust property.

Petitioner and Provincial Government sought implementation of order passed by Federal Government with regard to status of property in question

Validity

Mutation in question was incorporated in compliance of Cabinet Division decision dated 10-06-1976 which mutation was later on illegally cancelled by Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board

Revisional authority in its order dated 04-06-2005 observed that the mutation was incorporated incompliance of the policy of Evacuee Trust Property Board, which was formulated in the light of decision of Federal Government in year 1976 and subsequent decision in year 1983 regarding possession of Educational Institutions

High Court directed Evacuee Trust Property Board to implement order passed by Federal Government / Revisional Authority in letter and spirit

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Contention of plaintiff was that his father was tenant of a portion of the suit property and under the settlement scheme applied for transfer of the said property which was allowed upon payment of cost/fee as per assessment of Settlement Department, however due to dispute of Trust Department, the final order could not be issued; that father of the plaintiff allowed respondent No. 1 to live in a room as shelter till the time they made their own arrangements; that respondent No. 1 taking advantage of grace of father of the plaintiff secretly behind the back approached the office of respondent No. 2 and illegally, collusively and fraudulently in 1989 deposited rent from 1977 to 1989 for suit property in order to show that he was tenant of the Trust Department; that respondent No. 2 inspite of fact that it had no jurisdiction, on the application of respondent No. 7, illegally ordered to demolish old constructed room and ordered ejectment of plaintiffs from the premises in question

Plaintiffs filed Civil suit against the said orders, in which Trust Department made a statement that they were not ejecting the plaintiffs from the property in question

Court set aside the impugned orders of ejectment and demolishing the room

Respondent No. 1 shifted from the suit property but did not vacate the same

Suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Trial Court

Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal

Validity

Chairman, who was required to convince himself on the facts of the case and detailed records of property in question, passed the impugned order merely on the submission made by the Administrator Evacuee Trust Property where the land in question was declared as "Mandir" (where there was no trace of any such construction) and offered the respondents if they accepted sovereignty of the Trust Department, they would be sold out portions in the said land

Taking benefit of the order, the respondent No. 1 managed a rental agreement in his favour since the Supreme Court in the meanwhile had passed orders that no sale of P.T.D property could be made out

Since the said order had been passed under Ss. 8 & 10 of the Evacuee Trust Properties Management and Disposal Act, 1975, perusal of the said statue in general and its Sections in particular showed that law required that a property to be put in a Trust Pool (under Section 7) before any such order was to be placed, which compliance was missing and whereas superior Courts had held that in order to give a finding (under Section 8) that a property was an Evacuee Trust Property ("ETP"), such determination had to be supported by an overwhelming evidence on record

In the present case, the judgments of both the Courts were given on the basis of the order of Chairman which had been passed without considering any evidence, except by luring respondents that if they accepted sovereignty of the Department, they would be given a booty

Language of the order did not inspire any confidence of the Court

Process of declaring the property an Evacuee Trust Property had not been followed, resultantly such an arbitrary and malice-infested order could not be considered valid

Revision petition was allowed by setting aside impugned judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, in circumstances.

Declaration of property as evacuee trust property only on the basis of reference filed by Evacuee Trust Property Board and reply thereto by the petitioner without recording evidence of both sides

Legality

Decision of the Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board concluding that the property in question was an evacuee trust property was solely based on a reference and its reply

Entries in the revenue record, allegedly based on a will, were considered a primary reason for the impugned decision, however, the absence of the attached will to establish the property's religious, educational, or charitable nature weakened the claim

Petitioner's claim that the property was acquired through a public auction was deemed significant, as S.10 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975, provided prima facie protection for bona fide transfers made by authority against verified claims

Both parties were entitled to a fair opportunity to establish their respective stances regarding the property's status, whether it was an evacuee trust property or an evacuee property

Impugned orders were set aside, and the case was remanded to the Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board for further proceedings to decide the issues involved

Constitutional petition was disposed of, in circumstances.

During proceedings before Chairman of the Board, petitioners did not produce any proof of their entitlement of allegedly abondand lands in Azad Jammu and Kashmir

Petitioners also did not produce relevant documents in respect of claim or its verification

Documentary proof of ownership was not brought before Chairman of Board and in revenue record property in question was in possession of tenants and under the management of Evacuee Trust Property Board since 1947

No other record was produced to prove that property in question was available in compensation pool to be allotted to petitioners

On the basis of material available on record, Chairman of the Board declared the suit property to be a Evacuee Trust Property attached to religious and charitable purpose

High Court declined to interfere in the matter, as there was no illegality or jurisdiction defect, nor there was misreading or non-reading of relevant record by the authorities below

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner / defendant was Evacuee Trust Property Board and was aggrieved of judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court in favour of respondents / plaintiffs setting aside order passed by Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board determining suit property as Evacuee Trust Property

Validity

Determination carried out by the Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board was not challengeable before Civil Court, in terms of S. 14 of Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975

Powers were exercised by the Chairman under S. 10 of Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975

Remedy of respondents against order in question was available either under sections 16 or 17 of Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975

Plea of bona fide purchase by respondents / plaintiffs, from alleged allottees, extended no protection when allotment of alleged allottees, to whom Permanent Transfer Deeds were issued after June 1968 and their matter had been decided in terms of orders passed by Chairman, which orders were intact and had otherwise attained finality

High Court set aside judgments and decrees passed by Lower Appellate Court and restored that of Trial Court

Trial Court had rightly held that Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate suits filed by respondents / plaintiffs

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Property in question was declared to be Evacuee Trust property and allotment made in favour of petitioners against their claim was cancelled by Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board

Validity

Order passed by Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board was never reversed by any competent authority

Property was declared as an evacuee trust property and such longstanding entries were also made part of quadrennial periodical record (Jamabandies)

Old entries in revenue record had acquired presumption of correctness under Art. 100 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Such presumption was not displaced by petitioner through any believable and trustworthy record

Allotments in question were made after target date i.e. 1-6-1964 and Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board was well within jurisdiction to take cognizance of reference made to him, who after proper adjudication rightly cancelled allotments of petitioners

High Court declined to interfere in cancellation of allotment as Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board did not commit any illegality

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner was aggrieved of cancellation of Permanent Transfer Deed regarding property in question which was declared to be an evacuee trust property

Validity

Property was declared as an evacuee trust property and such long standing entries were also made part of quadrennial periodical record (Jamabandies), which had acquired presumption of correctness under Art. 100 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Such presumption was not displaced by petitioners through any believable and trustworthy record

Relief under S.10 of Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975, could only be provided to those claimants to whom Settlement Authorities had transferred evacuee trust properties erroneously in a bona fide manner

Deliberate or wanton transfer of evacuee trust property by Settlement Authorities against evacuee claim was not covered by S.10 of Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975

Property in question was trust property which was excluded from compensation pool as per S.4(2) of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and could not be allotted/auctioned by any government functionary

Evacuee Trust Property Board rightly treated property in question as an evacuee trust property and cancelled Permanent Transfer Deed

High Court declined to interfere in cancellation of Permanent Transfer Deed as no illegality was committed by the fora below

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Property in question was Evacuee Trust property leased in favour of respondent and authorities had allowed a third party to reconstruct the property

Validity

Only existing tenant, was competent to apply for reconstruction of a building in its occupation

No subletting partly or wholly was allowed with regard to any property already in possession of lessee or tenant

Third party interest was only inducted, if Evacuee Trust Property Board had decided to develop a property and tenant of the property had not shown willingness to such proposal, then offer/tender could be invited through press or other media for development of the property

Act of authorities in entering into an agreement by an existing lessee with a third person, giving sanction to such arrangement, induction of a third person as a co-tenant in already exiting tenancy/lease, conversion of land use of property presently being used for Yatim Khana, Madrassa and mosque, into commercial premises were acts having no sanction

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Property in question was declared to be evacuee trust property and order was set aside by Federal Government in exercise of revisional jurisdiction

Validity

Federal Government as revisional authority under S. 17 of Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975, was competent to call for record and examine orders passed by Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board

High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction was competent to examine orders passed by Chairman and revisional authority and its legality

In view of mutation and fehrist maafiyat, property in question was correctly declared by Chairman as evacuee trust property

Such was not simple 'evacuee property' available for allotment to displaced persons under Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958

Order passed by revisional authority was result of misreading and non-reading of record including documentary evidence based on wrong presumptions

High Court set aside order passed by Federal Government and restored that of Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioners assailed order passed by Chairman Evacuee Property Trust Board, declaring shop in question as Evacuee Trust Property resultantly Permanent Transfer Deed was cancelled

Validity

Transfer or utilization bona fide in satisfaction of claim of certain class of immovable properties were valid where it had satisfied condition laid down in S.10 of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, that it was utilized bona fide and transfer was against satisfaction of verified claim and that in respect of such property a Permanent Transfer Deed had been issued prior to June, 1968

If any one of such conditions were missing, transfer of such property could not be validated under S.10 of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958

Two conditions of property being utilized bona fide and was transferred against satisfaction of verified claim, was missing and auction of the shop was not in accordance with S.10 of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958

Concurrent findings of three forums below, where it had been concluded that shop in question was an evacuee trust property and could not have been auctioned or sold under the law and findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and applicable law

Supreme Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings so reached by lower forums, which were without exception

Petition was dismissed.

Shop in question was originally transferred to respondent as evacuee property and Permanent Transfer Deed was issued to him by Settlement Department on 24-4-1972

Petitioner purchased the shop from respondent on 14-12-1978, through registered sale-deed, without having knowledge that the property was a Trust property

Department remained sleeping over the matter for 20 years when in year 1991, reference under Ss. 8 and 10(2) of Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975, was instituted

Validity

Inaction on Evacuee Trust Properties Board for such a long time disentitled it for any relief, as it was nowhere mentioned in Permanent Transfer Deed that shop in question was Trust property

Both forums below misconstrued material available on record and had illegally declared shop in question as a trust property without there being any basis for so holding

High Court declared order passed by Evacuee Trust Properties Board to have been passed on wrong presumption of law and facts of the case hence of no legal effect and the same was quashed

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

As per S. 10 of Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975, the cut-off date of June 1964 and June 1968 had been provided, prior to which, if urban or rural evacuee trust properties respectively were utilized bonafidely against verified claims i.e. Permanent Transfer Deeds (PTDs), then they would be treated as having been validly transferred to the Chief Settlement Commissioner

Permanent Transfer Deed, in the present case, was issued to the plaintiff in the year 1964, hence suit property (situated in urban area) could not be treated as evacuee trust property

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Evacuee property in dispute was permanently transferred to the petitioner and Permanent Transfer Deed in respect thereof was issued to him in the year 1972

Permanent Transfer Deed issued to the petitioner was cancelled by Settlement Commissioner/Notified Officer, holding that property in dispute being evacuee trust property, was out of the domain of Settlement Authority, issuance of Permanent Transfer Deed in the name of the petitioner was illegal and without lawful authority

Validity

After repeal of evacuee laws by Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, Chief Settlement Commissioner had become non-existent and only Notified Officer was recognized by law for pending proceedings

Issuance of title document/ Permanent Transfer Deed before repeal of evacuee laws in 1975, Settlement Authorities had become functus officio

Permanent Transfer Deed issued to petitioner, much earlier than repeal of evacuee laws, would be deemed to be a closed and past transaction, which could not have been re-Opened on the request of Deputy Administrator Evacuee Trust Property, property in question being not used for any charitable purpose nor Notified Officer, could have cancelled the Permanent Transfer Deed, having not been entrusted with the power to entertain and adjudicate upon the matter

Impugned order whereby Permanent Transfer Deed issued to the petitioner was cancelled in the year 2009, was declared illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

Plea raised by petitioner was that property in question could not be declared as Evacuee Trust Property, as proceedings regarding its allotment were initiated in his favour

Validity

Property in question was declared as Evacuee Trust by Chairman Evacuee Trust Properties Board and revision petition preferred against it was also dismissed by Federal Government

Petitioner could not point out that as to how exercise of power by Chairman Evacuee Trust Properties Board and Federal Government was illegal or ultra vires

Petitioner had no right in property in question, therefore, question of its infringement did not arise

Property in question remained `Dharamsala' in old Revenue Record which was subsequently converted into Primary School for Girls and accordingly its nature was changed and it was recorded as land to `Rafah-i-Aamah'

High Court rightly dismissed the petition filed by petitioner, as the same was frivolous and misconceived

Leave to appeal was refused.

Property in question was declared Evacuee Trust Property with the concession that if any portion of said property had been transferred by Settlement Organization in favour of any entitled person before target date i.e. 30-6-1968 then said transfer would not be disturbed and such transfer would continue to stand

Petitioners, who claimed that Provisional Transfer Order was issued in their favour before said target date, had not paid price of said property even after expiry of said target date and no Permanent Transfer Deed was issued in their favour by Settlement Organization

Petitioners were rightly held not entitled to transfer to their property in question and were rightly not declared to be transferees of property in question.

Evacuee trust property-Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court where question entailed examination of legal instruments governing use and disposal of evacuee trust property and powers of Evacuee Property Trust Board.