' SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.---The appellants' mother Mst. Sabiha Sultana was running a school commonly known as "Sabiha Junior Model School", Kumharpura, Lahore. This school was requisitioned by respondent No,2 vide order dated 4-5-1977. The school measured around 5 Marlas, consisted of five rooms, etc. Was nationalized earlier pursuant to the enforcement of Martial Law Regulation No,118. The monthly rent was fixed at Rs,200 per month. The appellants being aggrieved of this fixation filed application under section 6 of the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956 for settlement of compensation of rent. The petition was adjudicated by the learned Additional District, Judge, Lahore, acting as Arbitrator. The basic grievance of the appellants was to enhance the rent to the extent of Rs,1,700 per month. After framing of issues, recording of evidence and hearing both the parties the petition was dismissed on 30-9-2000, Aggrieved thereof the appellants have filed the present appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the rent of Rs,200 was not in accordance with the value of the property and also not in accordance with the parameters set by the Honorable Supreme Court in the judgments reported as Province of the Punjab v. Amin Jan Naeem and 4 others (PLD 1994 SC 141) and Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Education, Lahore v. Shahida Begum (1994 SCM R 1488). Respondent No,1 was under bounden duty to fix the rent in accordance with these parameters and Rs,1,700 was a reasonable demand. The trial Court did not consider the material on record and the judgment is not in consonance with the above cited precedents.
' The Assistant Advocate-General vehemently refuted the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the judgment is in consonance with the parameters set in law and there is no misreading or non-reading of evidence. There was absolute no basis for increase in the rent and above all this is not a live issue any more as according to him the property was sold in 1996 and the appellants have no nexus with it, therefore, they could not file the petition or present appeal.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. The property in question belonged to one Kh. Muhammad Saleem and comprised of five rooms etc. His mother, Mst. Sabiha Sultana, was running school in these premises. In 1972 with the promulgation of Martial Law Registration No,118 the school was taken over. Later in 1977, the Home Department, Government of Punjab, issued requisition orders and requisitioned this property for the purposes of school. In 1994 Kh. Shahab- ud-Din murdered some persons and thereafter in lieu of a compromise, "Mark C", the appellants surrendered this property in favour of Muhammad Aslam etc. And completely divested themselves of ownership of the aforesaid property. The compromise was produced before the trial Court as Exh.RW.1. It is interesting to note that after the execution of this compromise on 3rd September, 1995 Muhammad Aslam etc. Took forcible possession of the school and put up their own locks and closed down the school. The Education Department made applications to the police officers and the District Magistrate seeking possession, but to no avail. In October, 1992, the present petition was filed compromise was struck on 12-7-1995, in which the appellants surrendered their rights in favour of Muhammad Aslam etc. Thus they had no nexus with this property after 12-7-1995 and could not continue the proceedings.
4. Before adverting to the merits of the appeal it is essential to discuss the legal position whether the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956 was at all applicable to these proceedings. It is an admitted position on record that the school was nationalized under Martial Law Regulation No,118 in 1972, the requisition order was passed on 4-5- 1977. Section 3 of the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956, provides in clear and unambiguous terms that no building which is used for imparting education shall be requisitioned, therefore, the basic order of requisitioning was illegal thus all proceedings thereafter are not legally tenable. This position has been examined and affirmed in the judgment reported as Mst. Shahnaz Begum and others v. Home Department and others (1991 CLC 1188). Additionally, the persons whose properties were taken under Martial Law Regulations No,118 were empowered to file ejectment petitions under the Rent Restriction A Ordinance, 1959, thus all the provisions of the Ordinance were fully applicable to them, including the provisions relating to the rent as enunciated in Province of the Punjab v. Ch. Fazal Karim, District Judge, Faisalabad and 5 others (1983 CLC 325) and Province of Punjab and others v. Muhammad Tufail (PLD 1985 SC 360). Further it stands proved from the testimony of R.Ws.1 and 2 that the ownership of the school was transferred by a compromise to Muhammad Aslam etc., who took forcible possession of the premises, the appellants surrendered all their rights in this property to them, therefore, they had no locus standi to continue the proceedings after the compromise (1995) or to file the present appeal thereafter. As the appellants had no nexus with the property, therefore, they could not claim advantage or privilege from it. Therefore, this appeal has no merits and is resultantly dismissed with no orders as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.