Find a Lawyer

In 1929, petitioner constructed a huge building on a plot acquired from the Government of Punjab in 1902, , to which adjacent property purchased in 1921 was annexed, and the building is occupied, amongst. others, by a recognised educational institution known as Rang Mahal Christian High School, Lahore. The Council continued to run the School till it was nation alised on 30th September, 1972 under the provisions of paragraph 5 of the Martial Law Regulation No. 118.

According to the petitioner, since one of the objects of the petitioner, as well as that of the Council, was to promote the cause of education, petitioner did not interfere with the running of the School by the Provincial Government, and allowed the. Government to occupy the premises rent‑free, as a licensee ; although rent was being charged from the other tenants of the property.

In the course of time, since the building became dilapidated and posed serious danger to human life, particularly that of the School children, the Director of Education, by his letter dated 29th August, 1974 requested the Council to undertake necessary repairs and also to demolish a portion of the building. The petitioner accordingly demolished nine rooms of the building and sought permission from the Lahore Municipal Corporation for further demolition and the reconstruction of a new building. The petitioner then called upon the respondents to vacate the premises and thereby terminated the licence in their favour to occupy the premises. Afterwards, it appears that the Provincial Government took the plea that since the School was nationalised, all the assets, including the building, stood vested in the Provincial Government, and treated the building as a Government property.

The petitioner challenged the action taken by the respondents before the Lahore High Court, in Writ Petition No. 1236 of 1981 on the ground, inter alia, that the building occupied by the School was the property owned by the petitioner and it cannot be treated as the property "attached to the School" within the meaning of paragraph '5 of the Martial Law Regulation No. 118. The High Court, however, dismissed the Writ Petition by the judgment dated 7th March, 1981, and the petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal.

Mr. Shaukat Ali Shaikh, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition submits that the petitioner is the owner of the building and it is partly occupied by the School, and it cannot, by any stretch of argument, be treated as the "property attached to the School" within the meaning of Paragraph 5 of the Martial Law Regulation No. 118. In support of this submission learned counsel referred to certain documents on record, for example, certified copy of the Property Register which shows the petitioner as the owner of the building, and the School as one of its occupiers.

If the petitioner is the owner of the building occupied by the School, the question for consideration is whether the building got vested in the Provincial Government by virtue of paragraph 5 of the Martial Law Regulation No. 118 which reads as under

"Such privately‑managed school as the Central Government, in the case of a school situated in Islamabad Capital Territory, and the Provincial Government in any other case; may, by notification in the official Gazette issued at any time on or after the first day of October 1972, specify in this behalf shall vest in the Central Government or, as the case may be, in the Provincial Government, together with all property attached to it."

The point that requires examination is whether the building owned by the petitioner, and not by the School, can be treated as the property attached to the School and be said to have got vested in the Provincial Government by virtue of the provisions of paragraph 5 of the Martial Law Regulation No. 118. This question and other points raised in support of the petition are substantial questions of law, and since these are likely to affect large number of case, an authoritative decision of this Court is necessary. We, therefore, grant special leave to appeal. Security, for costs is fixed at Rs. 2,500.