Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 386 of 1969, decided on 2nd March 1970.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 23rd September 1969, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 310 of 1969).

(No. 9 of 1959), paras. 5 & 6‑Border Area Committee giving show‑cause notices to persons externed and holding regular inquiry but such persons wilfully failing to attend inquiry‑Such persons also not declaring their immovable properties when subsequently served with notices but removing themselves from border area‑Externment order passed by Border Area Committee, held, not faulty in circumstances‑High Court's order directing compensation to be paid to such persons, held, adequately protected their right‑Petition for Special Leave to Appeal dismissed by Supreme Court.

Muhammad Aslam Chattha, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 2nd March 1970.

‑The petitioners in this case, who were residents of a village situated in the border area of the Lahore Sector were proceeded against under section 5 of the West Pakistan Border Area Regulation, 1959, on the ground that they were engaged in smuggling or in some other activity prejudicial to the economy or security of Pakistan.

Notices were served on them to appear before the Border Area Committee to show cause. They did so on the first day but thereafter they did not participate in the proceedings. Hence, on the 12th May 1967, they were declared undesirable persons. Subsequently notices were again issued to them to declare their immovable properties, if any, within the border area. They neither appeared nor supplied any information nor challenged the order of the Border Area Committee, but voluntarily removed themselves from the border area with the result that the Border Area Committee took it for granted that they had no immovable property within the area and ordered their externment from 9‑6‑1967.

Thereafter they applied to the Deputy Commissioner under sub‑Para. (b) of paragraph 6 of the said Regulation, for permission to re‑enter into the area on the ground that they had immovable properties in this area. This permission was refused on the 10th December, 1968. The refusal was sought to be challenged before the High Court by a petition under Article 98 of the Constitution of 1962.

A learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore Seat took the view that the Border Area Committee had acted with regularity after holding necessary enquiries into the matter with notice to the petitioners. Whatever was done by the Border Area Committee was, therefore, regular and legal. The petitioners themselves, it was felt, had brought this misfortune upon themselves by not responding to the notices of the Border Area Committee and disclosing the fact that they possessed immovable properties within the Border Area. Had they done so the Committee, it was observed, would have followed the procedure prescribed in para. 6 of the Regulation and offered them compensation as required there under. Nevertheless the learned Judge while dismissing the writ petition directed that the petitioners 'should be provided with adequate compensation as required under the law, within a period of four months and if this was not done then the petitioners should have the liberty to apply to the High Court again for suitable action.

This order has been upheld by a Letters Patent Bench which dismissed the appeal in limine. The petitioners now seek leave to appeal to this Court.

We see no reason to disagree with the view taken by the High Court. The Border Area Committee was in no way at fault. The petitioners by disregarding the notices issued by the Committee had brought about this situation. They cannot no be allowed to urge that the Border Area Committee had acted illegally. If it had been brought to the notice of the Border Area Committee that they had immovable properties in this area, the Committee would have acted in accordance with law and offered them compensation. In any event their right to receive the compensation has been adequately protected by the High Court. We see no reason to interfere.

This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.