' MRS. QAISER IQBAL, J.---The petitioners seek that impugned order dated 28-11-1996 passed by the Board of Trustees, Abandoned Properties Cabinet Division Camp Office at Karachi as consequence of proceedings under section 15(3) of the Abandoned Properties (Taking Over and Management)
Act, 1975 to be declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. Briefly the facts leading to the petition are that the petitioner since deceased purchased benami Building Nos. O.T.1/64, R.S. 2/2 situated at Mithadar and Ramswami, respectively, at Karachi in the name of respondent No,
1. The original document relating to the Buildings along with General Power of Attorney were delivered to the deceased petitioner by respondent No,1 who left for India in the year 1957. Uninterrupted possession of both the Buildings remained with the deceased petitioner, who enjoyed income of both the Buildings. After the death of Abdul Sattar, in the year, 1991 the Buildings came in possession of his legal heirs. The dispute arose when one of the tenants picked up quarrel with the deceased petitioner on enhancement of the rent in the year, 1976 and moved an application with the respondent No,2 alleging that the disputed Buildings belong to the respondent No,1, who had proceeded to erstwhile East Pakistan, therefore the Buildings were notified as abandoned properties under the Act vide Notification dated 4-4-1977.
3. The deceased petitioner filed an application under sections 13 and 14 of the Act for declaration before the respondent No, 2 that the Buildings were not the abandoned properties of the specified person in terms of the Act. The above application was declined by the respondent No,2 by order dated 14-12-1978, the deceased petitioner moved an application before the respondent No,3, which was also rejected on 30-4-1980. Consequent thereupon C.P. No,D-97 of 1982 was preferred in the High Court of Sindh, the above referred orders were set aside, case was remanded to respondent No,2 of fresh adjudication on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties in order to prove that the respondent No,1 was an Indian National. Respondent No,2 after recording the evidence deleted the buildings from the list of abandoned properties, which was leased in favour of the deceased petitioner. However, after a lapse of six years of the order passed by respondent No,2, the respondent No,3 in exercise of suo motu powers served notice dated 7-2-1996 upon deceased petitioner in exercise of purported revisional jurisdiction under section 15(3) of the Act, and set aside the order passed by respondent No,2. The deceased petitioner being dissatisfied with the order passed by respondent No,3 had resorted to invoke writ jurisdiction.
4. The main question requiring determination is whether respondent No,1 was a citizen of Pakistan and had shifted to territories constituted the Province of East Pakistan on or before 16-12-1971. There is ample evidence produced before the respondent No,2 that the respondent No,1 had left Pakistan in the year 1954 for India and had acquired an Indian Passport issued from Bhopal, attested copy thereof by a Notary Public at Delhi India and also by Section Officer (Counsellor) Ministry of Foreign Affairs New Delhi countersigned by Secretary High Commission for Pakistan New Delhi, has been placed on record. This factum was further established from the irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 27-2-1981 executed by respondent No,1 in favour of deceased petitioner in India.
There is no cavil to the fact that the respondent No, 1 lived in Pakistan prior to the year, 1951, on and 1-2-1951 he was obviously a citizen of Pakistan within the provisions of section 3(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1951. The case of respondent No,1 falls under section 16-A(1)(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1951, provides that a person who lived any time before 16-12-1971 was a citizens of Pakistan domiciled in the territories which before the said day constituted mainly relied upon the definition of specified person contained in clause (f) of section 2 to the Act) which reads as follows:-- "(t) 'specified person' means a person who, at any time before the Province of East Pakistan and who were residing in Pakistan on that day and are voluntarily residing therein since that day shall continue to be citizens of Pakistan.
5. Mr. Shahanshah Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners has ceased or ceases to be a citizen of Pakistan; and includes a company registered in the said territories the registered office of which has not been shifted in pursuance of the Companies the sixteenth day of December, 1971, was a citizen of Pakistan domiciled in the territories which before the said day constituted the Province of East Pakistan and who, on or after that day, has not been shifted in pursuance of the companies (Shifting of Registered Office) Ordinance, 1972 (V of 1972)."
6. Conversely, Mr. Hissamuddin, learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that the respondent No,1 had proceeded to erstwhile East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) for the purpose of carrying out his business, therefore, the respondent No,3 was justified in declaring respondent No,1 as specified person within the meaning of the Act, therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference. It is further contended that the respondent No,3 had suo motu revisional powers to set aside the order passed by respondent No,2.
7. We have considered the arguments advanced at bar. The respondent No,3 under the Act is not empowered to declare under the Constitution or by Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 whether a particular A individual is or is not citizen of Pakistan. The respondent No,1 migrated to Pakistan, lived up to 1954 and then shifted to India. Merely that at one point of time he intended to carry out business, in erstwhile East Pakistan is not conclusive proof of the fact that he was a "specified person" within the meaning of the Act. The approach of the Board of B Trustees was not in consonance of the law, based upon infirmities and is without lawful authority. In support of the above contention reliance is placed on the case of the Board of Trustees, through Chairman, Islamabad v. Syed Munirul Huda Chowdhry and others PLD 1998 SC 127. In the aforesaid case their Lordships of the Honourable Supreme Court were pleased to hold that a certificate of Pakistan Citizenship awarded by the Chairman Board of Trustees was prima facie evidence of a person being a citizen and an order setting aside the same did not warrant interference.
Adverting to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties pertaining to the jurisdiction of respondent No,3, it appears that the order passed by the respondent No,3 is violative of the rule 11 of the Rules framed by the Federal Government under the Act as revisional powers could be exercised within thirty days of the order passed by the Deputy Administrator whereas suo motu proceedings were initiated after the lapse of six years much after the lapse of prescribed limit. We are, therefore, of the view that impugned order suffers from legal infirmity and is against the norms of justice, equity and good conscience.
' In view of the above discussion we are constrained to hold that the impugned order passed by Respondent No,3 treating the Buildings as abandoned properties is without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The petition is accordingly allowed.
' These are the reasons for the short order dated 24-5-2006, whereby petition was allowed.