SAYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J. - A dispute concerning ownership and title of a big chunk of land measuring about 762. Kanals situated in the border belt (within five miles of Indo-Pak border) cropped up between the Federal Government and the Provincial Government by order dated 21.8.2000 passed by the Border Area Committee it has been declared to be the ownership of the Provincial Government. The said order has been assailed by Pakistan Railways and the Federation of Pakistan, Ministry of Railways Government of Pakistan through Secretary Railways by filing this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 impleading therein the Border Area Committee and the Province of Punjab through Board of Revenue as the respondents.
2. Referring to the various Constitutional provisions of erstwhile constitutions and the present Constitution, legislative measures. Presidential Orders and other instruments it is sought to be urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Border Area Committee has acted illegally and without jurisdiction in declaring the property as owned by the Provincial Government whereas the same is owned and vests in the Federal Government Pakistan Railways.
3. In such context when a substantial question as to the interpretation of constitutional law was involved and the dispute related to two Governments i.e. The Federal Government and the Provincial Government to-the ownership of the land, the provisions of Article 184 (I) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 prima facie appeared to have been attracted. As such notice in terms of Rule 1 of Order XXVII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was ordered to be issued to the Attorney-General, Pakistan and the Advocate-General Punjab on 1.4.2002. The learned Deputy Attorney General, Pakistan has contended that in view of clause (I) of Article 184 of the Constitution the matter pertains to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and no other Court including the Border Area Committee or this Court has jurisdiction in the matter.
4. As is noted above,, the order was passed by the Border Area Committee constituted by the Provincial Government under paragraph No. 4 of the West Pakistan Board Area Regulation, 1959 (MLR Zone "B" 9) comprising a nominee of Board of Revenue Punjab and a representative of Pakistan Army i.e. The nominee of the General Headquarters who was to be the Incharge of the Committee, it assumed jurisdiction in the matter on some complaint. The jurisdiction of such Committee is defined in various paragraphs of the above-mentioned Regulation and moreso in paragraphs No. 9 and 10 thereof. Under paragraph 15 of the Regulation no provision of the Regulation, any order passed or direction issued by it can be called in-question before the High Court or the Supreme Court. Such provisions of the regulation came up for consideration in Mehr Din and 7 others Vs. Border Area Committee Bahawalnagar and another (PLD 1970 SC 311) and it was held that 'The ouster of jurisdiction of the High Court in paras 15 and 16 of Martial Law Regulation 9, "Zone B", therefore, ceased to be operative as against the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court by Article 98 from the commencing day viz. 8th June, 1962.
5. In the present case however, the pivotal question that arises is whether in presence of the provisions of Article 184 (I) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the Committee could grant such a declaration as to who was the owner of the property i.e. The Federal Government and the Provincial Government, in view of the relevance of clause (1) and (2) of Article 184 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, it is reproduced as under: "(I) Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of every other Court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute between any two or more Governments.
Explanation-in this clause" Governments" means the Federal Government and the Provincial Government.
(2) In the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on its by clause (I), the Supreme Court shall pronounce declaratory judgments only".
6. The plain reading of the above provisions of the Constitution would show that whenever there is any dispute between any two or more Governments., the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court gets attracted to the exclusion of every other Court. The object of this provision of the Constitution which is almost identical with the provisions in the erstwhile constitutions was highlighted in the commentary on the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 by late Justice Muhammad Munir as under: "Object of the Article-The underlying object of the article is that since in a federal system of a country as prevails in Pakistan, disputes may arise between Federal or Central Government and one or more Provincial Governments or between two or more Provinces there should be an Authority or forum with the Constitutional mandate for the resolution of such disputes. This forum has been provided in the Supreme Court which is the highest Court of the land so that an expeditious and authoritative decision on the disputes may be obtained".
In The Punjab Province Vs. The Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1956 Federal Court 72) with reference to section 204 of the Government of India Act, 1935 it was observed that "The principle underlying that section which creates a special jurisdiction is that all disputes whether of law or of fact, on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends must be determined by this Court it the parties to the dispute happen to be the Federation on the one side and anyone or more of the provinces on the other or if two more provinces are arrayed against one another, because it is in the highest degree undesirable that the Federation and the Provinces should be fighting out their battles in ordinary Courts like common litigants. "in Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence Vs. Province of Punjab and others ( PLD 1975 SC 37) the controversy as to the liveability of property tax was taken before the Supreme Court of Pakistan in its original jurisdiction in view of the dispute and the parties being the Ministry of Defence Government of Pakistan and the Province of Punjab, in The Commissioner of Income Tax Lahore Vs. Messrs Government Ja/lo Rosin & Turpentine Factory Lahore (PLD 1976 Lahore 1135) a learned Division Bench of this Court on consideration of the judgment of the Federal Court in Punjab Province (supra), in a tax reference came to the conclusion that "in our respectful opinion this authority goes a long way in interpreting Article 57 of the 1962 Constitution, it can, therefore, be safely held that the exclusive jurisdiction to settle this dispute between the Central and the Provincial Government vested in the supreme Court.
Therefore, not only that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal was bad the assessment completed by the income Tax Officer from its very inception was ab initio void and without jurisdiction, "it was thus held that "in this conclusion our above findings on the merits of this reference made to the High Court is thus rendered redundant," The case was disposed of accordingly, it is thus obvious that the dispute having arisen in the instant case as to which of the Government was the owner of the disputed property, it fell within the ambit and exclusive jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 184(1) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and the Border Area Committee, which has been constituted by the Provincial Government stood denuded of the power in the matter, it could neither assume jurisdiction nor grant declaration as has been done through the impugned order.
7. So far as the competency of this petition and its fate is concerned it may be observed that since the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1373, commonly known as writ jurisdictions is exercisable subject to the Constitutional, even the- jurisdiction of this Court also stand ousted in view of exclusively jurisdiction clauses in Article 184(1) of the Constitution. A fortiori, constitutionally the matter cannot be agitated before this Court even nor examined by it.
The petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to cost.