06/03/2021
Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act (XIII of 1975).
1990 CLC 861 (Karachi)
Before Saleem Akhtar and Imam Ali Kazi, JJ
POST MASTER GENERAL‑‑Petitioner
versus
CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY SINDH and 2 others‑‑Respondents
Constitutional Petition No.D‑44 of 1980, decided on 1st December, 1988.
(a) Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act (XIII of 1975)‑‑
S. 10‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Evacuee property.
Petitioner claiming that property under his occupation, allegedly as tenant, was in fact declared as an evacuee property and was transferred in his favour.
Petitioner not producing any authentic documents to show that property was transferred in his favour.
Custodian Evacuee Property declared that property in dispute belonged to someone else and could not be declared as an evacuee.
Order of Custodian of Evacuee Property had already been set aside by High Court while deciding a writ petition by a third party claiming transfer of property in her favour.
Held , in view of section 10 of Act XIII of 1975, petitioner could approach Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board, for relief.
Constitutional petition was dismissed.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Alternative and effective remedy available to petitioner under law‑‑‑Relief sought in writ petition refused.
Abdul Waheed Siddiqui for Petitioner.
Naraindas for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 1st December, 1988.
JUDGMENT
SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑‑The petitioner claims to be a tenant of.house bearing No.740/1'2, 741 and 742 situated in Kambar Ali Khan, district Larkana, Sindh which is used for purposes of Post Office. It is alleged that the said property was declared as an evacuee property and was transferred to the petitioner. This transfer seems to have been challenged by respondent No.2 and the Custodian Evacuee Property Sindh Hyderabad by his order dated 11‑7‑1974 declared that the property belonged to the Barbar and could not be declared as evacuee property. This order has been challenged by the petitioner. One Mst. Hajira and two others had challenged this order in Constitutional Petition No.D18 of 1979. They were claiming the transfer of this property in their favour as valid as it was an evacuee property. The respondent No.3 in the present petition and respondent No.1 were cited in that petition as respondents 1 and 2.
Mr. Naraindas, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has filed a photo copy of the judgment passed in that petition where the order dated 11‑7‑1974 impugned in this petition was declared to have been passed without lawful authority.
However, in view of section 10 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 (Act XIII of 1975) the petitioners who had valid transfer documents were directed to approach the Chairman of Evacuee Trust Property. Board in accordance with law.
In the present case, we find that the petitioner has not produced any authentic documents to show that the property was transferred in his favour. 'The impugned order has already been set aside and following the same reasoning and A grounds, the same is declared to be without lawful authority. In view of section 10 of the Act, we also direct that the petitioner may approach the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board for relief as provided under the Act.
The second relief sought by the petitioner is that Civil Suit No.1041 of 1977 which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge First Class, Larkana should be declared to be without jurisdiction. This relief cannot be granted as there is g alternate and effective remedy available to the petitioner under the law.
With these observations, the petition is disposed of with no orders as to costs.
M.Y.H./P‑116/K Order accordingly.
