Lahore High Court invalidated the lease of a 1 Kanal plot , ruling that the Minister's recommendation and Wafaqi Mohtasib's orders were illegal.

Lahore High Court invalidated the lease of a 1 Kanal plot to Ghyas Ahmad Rana, ruling that the Minister's recommendation and Wafaqi Mohtasib's orders were illegal.

منسٹر کے کہنے پر وفاقی محتسب کسی کو پلاٹ لیز پر نہیں دے سکتا۔

پس منظرِ مقدمہ

یہ آئینی درخواست Evacuee Trust Property Board کی جانب سے دائر کی گئی جس میں ایک کنال کے پلاٹ کی لیز، جو غیاث احمد رانا کے حق میں دی گئی تھی، کو چیلنج کیا گیا۔ یہ لیز وزیر کی سفارش اور وفاقی محتسب کے احکامات کی بنیاد پر دی گئی تھی، جسے بعد ازاں بورڈ اور وفاقی حکومت نے قانون کے خلاف قرار دے کر منسوخ کر دیا تھا۔

حقائقِ مقدمہ

غیاث احمد رانا نے 1977 میں وزیر برائے اوقاف و ٹرسٹ پراپرٹیز کو درخواست دی کہ چونکہ ان کے پاس کوئی ذاتی مکان یا زمین نہیں، اس لیے انہیں لاہور میں پلاٹ الاٹ کیا جائے۔ وزیر نے ایک کنال کا پلاٹ 99 سالہ لیز پر دینے کی سفارش کی، جس پر Evacuee Trust Property Board نے پلاٹ لیز پر دے دیا۔ بعد میں یہ لیز Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 کے خلاف پائی گئی اور منسوخ کر دی گئی۔ اس منسوخی کے خلاف غیاث احمد رانا نے وفاقی محتسب سے رجوع کیا، جس نے لیز بحال کرنے کے احکامات صادر کیے۔

قانونی سوالات

عدالت کے سامنے بنیادی سوال یہ تھے کہ آیا کسی وزیر کو یہ اختیار حاصل ہے کہ وہ قانونی طریقہ کار کے بغیر کسی مخصوص فرد کے حق میں سرکاری یا متروکہ جائیداد کی لیز کی سفارش کرے، اور آیا وفاقی محتسب کسی وزیر کی ایسی غیر قانونی سفارشات پر عمل درآمد کا حکم دے سکتا ہے۔

عدالت کا تجزیہ

لاہور ہائیکورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ Evacuee Trust Properties (Management & Disposal) Act, 1975 اور اس کے تحت بننے والی اسکیم کے مطابق متروکہ جائیداد کی لیز صرف عوامی نیلامی یا ٹینڈر کے ذریعے دی جا سکتی ہے۔ قانون میں کہیں بھی وزیر کو یہ اختیار حاصل نہیں کہ وہ کسی فردِ واحد کے حق میں لیز کی سفارش کرے۔ اس نوعیت کی سفارش قانوناً بے اختیار، غیر قانونی اور ابتدا ہی سے باطل ہے۔

عدالت نے مزید قرار دیا کہ وفاقی محتسب کا دائرہ اختیار صرف انتظامی بدانتظامی تک محدود ہے۔ متروکہ جائیداد کی لیز یا اس کی منسوخی ایسا معاملہ نہیں جو وفاقی محتسب کے دائرہ اختیار میں آتا ہو، خصوصاً جب اس کے لیے قانون میں متبادل فورم اور طریقہ کار موجود ہو۔ اس لیے وفاقی محتسب کے جاری کردہ احکامات بھی دائرہ اختیار سے ماورا تھے۔

عوامی جائیداد اور پبلک پالیسی

عدالت نے اس اصول کو دہرایا کہ عوامی جائیداد ایک قومی اثاثہ ہے اور عدالتیں اس کی محافظ ہیں۔ کسی بھی ایسے حکم یا معاہدے کی کوئی قانونی حیثیت نہیں ہوتی جو قانون اور عوامی پالیسی کے خلاف ہو۔ جو حکم ابتدا ہی سے غیر قانونی ہو، اس کی بنیاد پر بننے والی تمام کارروائیاں اور حقوق خود بخود ختم ہو جاتے ہیں۔

فیصلہ

لاہور ہائیکورٹ نے آئینی درخواست منظور کرتے ہوئے وزیر کی سفارش، وفاقی محتسب کے تمام احکامات اور ان پر مبنی لیز کو کالعدم قرار دے دیا۔ عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ غیاث احمد رانا کے حق میں دی گئی ایک کنال پلاٹ کی لیز غیر قانونی اور ابتدا ہی سے باطل ہے۔ Evacuee Trust Property Board کو ہدایت کی گئی کہ وہ معاملے میں آئندہ کارروائی قانون کے مطابق کرے۔

قانونی اہمیت

یہ فیصلہ اس اصول کو مضبوط کرتا ہے کہ کسی وزیر کی غیر قانونی سفارش پر سرکاری یا متروکہ جائیداد الاٹ نہیں کی جا سکتی، اور وفاقی محتسب ایسے معاملات میں مداخلت کا اختیار نہیں رکھتا۔ مزید یہ کہ قانون کے خلاف دی گئی ہر لیز یا الاٹمنٹ ابتدا ہی سے باطل ہوتی ہے اور اس سے کوئی قانونی حق پیدا نہیں ہوتا۔

ڈبلیو پی کے فیصلے میں نمبر 17384/2000:

1. **وزارتی اتھارٹی*

*: عدالت نے فیصلہ دیا کہ کسی وزیر کے پاس یہ اختیار نہیں ہے کہ وہ قانونی طریقہ کار سے باہر خالی ہونے والی جائیداد کی لیز کی سفارش کرے، اس طرح کی سفارشات کو غیر قانونی قرار دیتی ہے۔

2. **وفاقی محتسب کا دائرہ اختیار*

*: وفاق محتسب کسی وزیر کی غیر قانونی سفارشات کی براہ راست تعمیل نہیں کرسکتا۔

3. **قانونی طریقہ کار*

*: خالی ہونے والی جائیداد کے لیے لیز کے عمل کو مخصوص قانونی طریقہ کار پر عمل کرنا چاہیے، بشمول عوامی نیلامی یا ٹینڈر۔

4. **باطل احکامات*

*: غیر قانونی اتھارٹی پر مبنی آرڈرز یا لیز کالعدم ہیں۔ عدالت نے مدعا علیہ کو دی گئی لیز کو کالعدم قرار دے دیا۔

عدالت نے درخواست کی اجازت دیتے ہوئے سابقہ احکامات کو کالعدم قرار دیتے ہوئے درخواست گزار بورڈ کو قانون کے مطابق کارروائی کرنے کی ہدایت کی۔

Must read judgement

Stereo. H C J D A 38

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

JUDGMENT

W.P.No.17384/2000

Evacuee Trust Property Board

through its Secretary

VS.

Ghyas Ahmad Rana etc.

Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, J:- Through this constitutional

petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic

Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the Evacuee Trust Property Board

[hereinafter referred to as the “petitioner-Board”] has challenged

the validity of order dated 17.04.1986 passed by Wafaqi

Mohtasib whereby the complaint filed by the respondent No.1

was accepted, the order dated 07.12.1991 passed by Wafaqi

Mohtasib in a review application filed by respondent No.1, the

order dated 27.09.1992 passed by Wafaqi Mohtasib whereby

review petition filed by the petitioner-Board was rejected and

order dated 21.01.1998 passed by the respondent No.3/Section

Officer, Ministry of Law, Justice and Human Rights, Government

of Pakistan, Islamabad who dismissed the representation of the

petitioner-Board being barred by limitation.

W.P.No.17384/2000

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/Ghyas

Ahmad Rana while serving as Deputy Controller of Branches

Inspection and Audit Team ‘A’, Agricultural Development Bank

of Pakistan, Lahore filed an application to the Minister, Evacuee

& Trust Properties, Islamabad on 05.02.1977 for allotment of one

plot measuring 02 Kanal in Lahore on the ground that he did not

own any land or house. The Minister for Religious Affairs

recommended for allotment of a plot measuring 01 Kanal situated

at Elgen Road, Lahore Cantt on lease for a period of 99 years to

the respondent No.1/Ghayyas Ahmad Rana. In compliance of the

said order, a plot measuring 01 Kanal in Lahore Cantonment

was leased out to respondent No.1 and possession was also

handed over to him. However, the Federal Government as well

as the petitioner-Board after examining the case of lease, came

to the conclusion that the said lease was made contrary to the

provision of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws

(Repeal) Act, 1975 and cancelled the lease vide letter dated

30.11.1978.

After a period of about six years, Ghayyas Ahmad Rana,

respondent No.1 filed a complaint to the Wafaqi Mohtasib with

the contention that lease of plot in question in his favour was

illegally cancelled. Wafaqi Mohtasib vide order dated 17.04.1986

set aside the cancellation order dated 30.11.1978 and passed

direction that plot on Elgan Road, Lahore should be re-leased to

respondent No.1 and in case the said plot has already been leased

to someone else than any other alternate plot in the same locality

be leased to respondent No.1. By the dint of above order, the

respondent No.1 approached the petitioner-Board on 02.08.1987

for implementation of order dated 17.04.1986 passed by Wafaqi

Mohtasib. In compliance of order dated 17.04.1986, the

petitioner-Board leased the plot to the respondent No.1 and

W.P.No.17384/2000

informed Wafaqi Mohtasib that possession has been delivered to

the respondent No.1.

The respondent No.1 filed another application on

25.11.1990 before Wafaqi Mohtasib upon which direction was

passed to the petitioner-Board for lease of another plot measuring

01 Kanal to the respondent No.1. A review application was filed

by the respondent No.1 to the Wafaqi Mohtasib with the plea that

the petitioner-Board has not complied with the order dated

17.04.1986 in letter and spirit. The said review application was

allowed by the Wafaqi Mohtasib on 07.12.1991 and a direction

was passed to the petitioner-Board for compliance of earlier

orders. The petitioner-Board also filed review application which

was dismissed by the Wafaqi Mohtasib on 27.09.1992. The

petitioner-Board filed representation before the President, Islamic

Republic of Pakistan who dismissed the said representation being

time barred on 21.01.1998. The petitioner-Board has challenged

the aforesaid orders through instant Writ Petition.

This writ petition was earlier dismissed by this Court vide

judgment dated 24.11.2004. The petitioner-Board assailed the

said judgment through Civil Petition No.365-L of 2011 which

was allowed vide order dated 03.11.2016 by the Supreme Court

of Pakistan and the case was remanded to this Court for decision

afresh on merit in accordance with law.

I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have

gone through the record.

The issue involved in this case can be formulated in the

shape of following questions:

Whether a Minister holds the authority to make

recommendation/proposal to the Evacuee Trust Property

Board to grant an evacuee property to any specific person

on lease without adopting the procedure laid down in

law?

W.P.No.17384/2000

ii.

Whether Wafaqi Mohtasib has jurisdiction to pass

direction to any department to comply with any

recommendation made by a Minister?

Under Section 30 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management

& Disposal) Act, 1975, “The Scheme for the Management &

Disposal of Urban Evacuee Trust Properties, 1977” was approved

by the Federal Government vide letter No.18-20/75-ETP, dated

17.07.1976 and as per Chapter III, Rule 7(i) of the said Scheme

an open plot may be leased out by public auction or by inviting

tender. For ready reference, aforesaid provision is reproduced as

under:

“7. LEASE OF OPEN PLOTS

(i) An open plot comprising an area not exceeding five kanal may

be leased out by public auction or by inviting tender, after wide

publicity through the press and local mushtary munadi for

residential or commercial purpose by the Chairman and that

exceeding five kanals by the Board initially for a period of 30 years

renewable for a similar period of periods.

Provided that if no bid or offer is received in three

consecutive public auctions or tenders or the response is not

worth consideration or is below the reserve price, the Board

may allow lease at the negotiated rate plus the amount of nonrefundable security to be decided on case to case basis.

…..

(iv) The auction of plots or sites shall be held by a committee

comprising:-

(a) A representation of the Board’s Headquarters not

below the rank of Deputy Secretary, to be

nominated by the Chairman;

(b) Administrator of the concerned Zone.

concerned; and

(d) A representative of District Revenue Officer not

below BPS-16 officer.

Provided that three members shall constitute the

quorum of the Committee.

(v) Lease exceeding 30 years shall be subject to the approval

of the Federal Government.”

The respondent No.1 filed application for lease of plot measuring

01 Kanal to the Minister for Evacuee & Trust Properties,

W.P.No.17384/2000

Islamabad upon which following recommendations were made by

him on 05.02.1977:

“One kanal plot on Elgan Road, Lahore Cantt. may be allotted

on ninety nine years lease at the rate of Rs. One per square

yard per annum, five thousand rupees may be charged as

down payment.”

The Evacuee Trust Properties (Management & Disposal)

Act, 1975 is a special law which provides mechanism for the

management, lease and disposal of the evacuee trust properties.

In the Act as well as Scheme ibid no provision is available

whereby any authority is vested with the Minister to make

recommendations to the petitioner-Board for lease of any plot to

any individual. This Court in a similar controversy has

elaborately discussed and settled this issue in a recent judgment

which has been cited as Ch. Munir Ahmad Vs. Government of

Punjab through Chief Secretary, Punjab Lahore and others (PLD

2022 Lahore 384), Province of Punjab through Secretary

Revenue and others Vs. District Bar Association, Khanewal and

others (2014 SCMR 1611), American International School

System Vs. Mian Muhammad Ramzan and others (2015 SCMR

1449), wherein it is blatantly observed that a Minister is denuded

of any power to issue, any such recommendations for lease of

plot and if any recommendation is so made that would be patently

illegal and without lawful authority, as it is settled law that any

order passed by an authority without having jurisdiction that

order would be void ab-initio. Reliance is placed on the cases

reported as Raja Ali Zaman (decd.) through L.Rs. and another Vs.

Evacuee Trust Property Board and another (PLD 2022 SC 726),

Khuda Bakhsh Vs. Khushi Muhammad and 3 others (PLD 1976

SC 208), Bashir Ahmad Vs. Meer Aslam Jan (2007 CLC 1544),

Messrs East-West Insurance Company Ltd. through Chairman &

Another Vs. Messrs Muhammad Shafi & Company through

Managing Partner & 2 Others (2009 CLD 960) and reliance is

W.P.No.17384/2000

also placed on an unreported judgment dated 18.04.2017

rendered by a learned Division Bench of this Court in case titled

as Sultan Vs. Federation of Pakistan and 4 others (Writ Petition

No.28756 of 2014) as well as on a recent pronouncement dated

08.11.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in

Civil Petition No.13-Q of 2020 titled as Gul Zaman Vs. Deputy

Commissioner/Collector Gwadar & others, thus well considered

resume of above is that any recommendation of the Minister for

grant/ lease of the plot are liable to be quashed being void abinitio and any superstructure built on the basis whereof shall also

be dismantled automatically.

As regard the second question that Whether Wafaqi

Mohtasib has jurisdiction to pass direction to any department to

comply with any recommendation made by a Minister? is concerned,

suffice it to say that the office of Wafaqi Mohtasib was created

under the “Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib

(Ombudsman) Order, 1983” dated 24.01.1983 whereby under

Section 9 of the Order ibid, the jurisdiction, functions and powers

of Mohtasib are provided, which are reproduced as under:

“9. Jurisdiction, functions and power of the Mohtasib.—(1) The

Mohtasib may, on a complaint by any aggrieved person, on a

reference by the President, the Federal Council or the National

Assembly, as the case may be, or on a motion of the Supreme Court

or a High Court made during the course of any proceedings before it

or of his own motion, undertake any investigation into any

allegation of maladministration on the part of any Agency or any of

its officers or employees:

Provided that the Mohtasib shall not have any jurisdiction to

investigate or inquire into any matters which:

(a) are sub-judice before a court of competent jurisdiction or

tribunal or board in Pakistan on the date of the receipt of a

complaint, reference or motion by him; or

(b) relate to the external affairs of Pakistan or the relations or

dealing of Pakistan with any foreign state or government; or

any part thereof, the military, naval and air forces of Pakistan, or the

matters covered by the laws relating to those forces.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (1), the

Mohtasib shall not accept for investigation any complaint by or on

behalf of a public servant or functionary concerning any matters

W.P.No.17384/2000

relating to the Agency in which he is, or has been, working in

respect of any personal grievance relating to his service therein.

(3) For carrying out the objectives of this Order and, in

particular for ascertaining the root causes of corrupt practices and

injustice, the Mohtasib may arrange for studies to be made or

research to be conducted and may recommend appropriate steps for

their eradication.

(4) The Mohtasib may set up regional offices as, when and

where required.”

The case for lease of plot owned by the petitioner-Board to the

respondent No.1 does not fall within the jurisdiction of Wafaqi

Mohtasib as provided in Section 9 of the Order ibid. There is no

evidence brought on record by the respondent No.1 regarding any

malpractice committed by the petitioner-Board and if any

cancellation of the plot in question was made by the petitionerBoard, the respondent No.1 has remedy of filing Revision before

the Federal Government under Section 17 of the Evacuee Trust

Properties (Management & Disposal) Act, 1975. Reliance in this

regard is placed on a case cited as Mster Chiragh Din Vs. Abdul

Hakim and Another (PLD 1974 Lahore 370).

Admittedly all the affairs of the state are managed and run

by the instrument of written constitution as well laws and

functions/ business of each and every department is to be carried

out under the well described manifest written jurisdiction and

each portfolio has to exercise its powers with the described

precincts of its jurisdiction and any transgression whereof would

be considered as illegal. Moreover according to Section 23 of the

Contract Act, 1872, if any order is passed by any authority

beyond its jurisdiction and against the public policy, such order in

its inception is nullity in the eyes of law and never convey any

absolute title in favour of the beneficiary. For ready reference,

Section 23 of the Act ibid is reproduced as under:

“23. What considerations and objects are lawful and what not. The

consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless:--it is

forbidden by law; or is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would

defeat the provisions of any law; or

W.P.No.17384/2000

is fraudulent; or involves or implies injury to the person or

property of another; or

the Court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public

policy. In each of these cases, the consideration or object of an

agreement is said to be unlawful. Every agreement of which the

object or consideration is unlawful is void.”

(emphasis supplied)

With regard to contract against law and public policy, the

Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case titled as Hameedullah and 9

others Vs. Headmistress, Government Girls School Chokara,

District Karak and 5 others (1997 SCMR 855) held that:-

“From the aforestated observations it is clear that the

agreement between the Government and the appellant was in

the nature of sale of a public office, consideration being the

transfer of land. Sale of public office cannot be a legal

transaction. It is completely illegal and against public policy.

Therefore, such an agreement is hit by section 23 of the

Contract Act, which makes it void.”

(emphasis supplied)

The Supreme Court in a case titled as Maulana Abdul Haque

Baloch and others Vs. Government of Balochistan through

Secretary Industries and Mineral Development and others (PLD

2013 SC 641) has held as under:-

“The competent authority also failed to determine the terms

and conditions to be fixed in granting the relaxations sought

for. In this view of the matter, in absence of the requirements

of rule 98 being fulfilled in the instant case, all relaxations

were granted in excess of authority and were entirely beyond

the scope of the provisions of law, and therefore, ultra vires the

powers granted under rule 98 of BMCR 1970 read with section

5 of the Act of 1948, and thus void. Shorn of relaxations so

grant, CHEJVA has no legal sanctity and consequently

remains an agreement entered into against the provisions of

law, hence not enforceable.

All the key provisions of CHEJVA were made subject to a

reliance on relaxations that were illegal and void ab initio, the

illegality of the agreement seeps to its root. As such, no

operative part of the agreement survives to be independently

enforceable and the principle of severability cannot be applied

to save any part thereof. The agreement is, therefore, void and

unenforceable in its entirety under the law.”

W.P.No.17384/2000

In another judgment titled as Muhammad Arshad Khakwani Vs.

I.U.B. and another (2011 MLD 322) this Court has held that:-

“No doubt the Statutory bodies are governed under the Act,

rules, regulations and statutes which are meant for the said

purpose and no one is allowed to supersede the same. The

University functionaries are presumed to act under the law and

no one can exceed from its domain neither supersede nor

deviate. If the provisions of the Act are not complied with then

the Institutions cannot run smoothly as is required by the law

and the guarantees provided by the Constitution of Islamic

Republic of Pakistan, 1973.”

It is settled law when the basic order has been passed

without jurisdiction and without lawful authority, then all the

superstructure built on the said order shall automatically

collapse/crumble down. Reliance is placed on the case of

Rehmatullah & Others Vs. Saleh Khan & Others (2007 SCMR

729).

The land in question is admittedly a public asset and the

Courts of law are custodian of the public properties, public

interest and while dealing with matters relating to such

properties/assets or interests, it is inalienable obligation of the

courts to be very careful and cautious and assure itself to the

extent of certainty that no foul is being played with the state

assets. An extraordinary obligation is placed upon the courts to

keep abreast itself with law and facts of the case and when certain

material facts unearthed before it then the matter should be

decided as per law even without being influenced by respective

pleadings of the parties. In this regard, reliance is placed on a

judgment cited as Provincial Government through Collector,

Kohat and another Versus Shabbir Hussain (PLD 2005 SC 337),

wherein the Supreme Court of the country has held as under:-

“12. Likewise, the learned Presiding Officers are also required

to exercise caution when they are dealing with matters relating

to public property and public interest of which the Courts of

law are the final custodians. It is true that we have never

leaned in favour of giving of preferential treatment to the

W.P.No.17384/2000

Government departments or agencies but then we are equally

obliged, while granting relief, to ensure that public interest is

not permitted to be jeopardized and public property is not

allowed to be squandered through mere collusion of some

representative of a Government agency”.

(emphasis supplied)

Further reliance is placed on cases cited as Al-shafique Housing

Society Vs. P.M.A (PLD 1992 SC 113), Union Council Dhabeji

Vs. Al-Noor Textile Mills Ltd (1993 SCMR 7), Multiline

Associates Vs. Ardeshir Cowasjee (PLD 1995 SC 423), Abdul

Haq Indher Vs. Province of Sindh (2007 SCMR 907), Taj

Muhammad Vs. Town Committee (1994 CLC 2214) and Sindh

Peoples Welfare Trust Vs. Government of Sindh (2005 CLC

713).

10.

Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned

orders, mentioned in paragraph No.1 of this judgment, are hereby

set aside. Consequently, the lease of the plots in question in

favour of respondent No.1 is hereby cancelled being illegal and

void ab-initio. The petitioner-Board is directed to proceed further

in the matter strictly in accordance with law.

(Ch. Muhammad Iqbal)

Judge

Announced in open Court on 13.12.2023.

Approved for reporting.

Judge

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.