' This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18th January, 1977, passed by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Social Welfare, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Government of Pakistan, exercising revisional jurisdiction on behalf of the Federal Government under section 17 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975.
2. The facts giving rise to this litigation are that Property No, F/1731 situate in Muhallah Sareen, Dabbi Bazar, Lahore was disposed of by the Settlement Department through an open auction and was purchased by respondent No. 1. Later on he associated respondent No, 2 with him. Aggrieved by this auction the Deputy Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property, Lahore, filed a reference before the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board under section 8 of the Act. The plea taken by the present petitioner before the Chairman was that in the revenue record the property in dispute was described as Wakf Ahli-Hanood and was also in occupation of Ahl-i-Hanood. The Settlement Department, herefore, had no jurisdiction to dispose of this property.: Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, contested the petition and also led some oral evidence. The Chairman came to the conclusion that the property was evacuee trust property. Accordingly, he accepted the reference.
' Dissatisfied with this order respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed a revision petition before the Federal Government under section 17 of the Act. The revisional authority came to the conclusion that the transaction as to the auction of the property was not fraudulent and was above board. He held that the evidence led by the Evacuee Trust Property Board did not conclusively establish that the property was a trust property. Accordingly the revision petition was accepted and the order treating the property as an evacuee trust property set aside.
3. This petition has been filed by the Deputy Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property, Lahore. In reply to a question put to the learned counsel as to how the Deputy Administrator can be treated as an aggrieved person in contemplation of Article 199 of the Constitution, he answered. That since the reference under section 8 of the Act was made by the Deputy Administrator and the disputed property also falls within his teritorial jurisdiction he has the locus standi to file the instant writ petition. The stand taken by the learned counsel is untenable. Under section 3 of the Act the Evacuee Trust Property Board is corporate body which can sue and be sued. Under section 4 of the Act, the supervision and control of all evacuee properties vests in the Board. It, therefore, cannot be said that the Deputy Administrator is either personally interested in the property or he is otherwise concerned with the general supervision or control of the evacuee trust property as against the Evacuee Trust Property Board. I at all any one is aggrieved that is the Evacuee Trust Property Board and not the Deputy Administrator. I am, therefore, of the view that the Deputy Administrator is not an aggrieved person eligible to file the instant petition.
4. The case may be examined from another angle also. Under section 6 of the Act, all evacuee trust properties vest in the Federal Government. The revision petition was also heard by the Federal Government in exercise of powers vested in it under section 17 of the Act. In exercise of such powers the Federal Government came to the conclusion that the property is not evacuee trust property. In this view of the matter there is no legitimate ground for interference with impugned order, in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, which is discretionary.
5. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, the learned counsel referred to the copies of the Record.Of-Rights for the years 1907-1908 and 1917-1918, Annexures 'C' & 'D' maintained by the Lahore Municipal Corporation, Lahore. These documents embodied the entry "Wakf Ahl-i-Hanood". This evidence was relied upon by the Chairman while answering the reference in favour of the Evacuee Trust Board. On the strength of these documents the learned counsel argued that this evidence conclusively proved the existence of the trust. The stand taken by the learned counsel is misconceived. It is to be noticed that the expression used in section 8(1) "an evacuee property is attached to a charitable, religious or educational trust or institution" is the same as was employed in section 4(2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The latter provision fell for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case reported as Evacuee Property Trust Board v. Lahore Improvement Trust, Lahore (1) and it was laid down therein :- "To prove that the property as attached to a religious trust would require the ascertainment of-
(a) the author of the alleged trust ;
(b) the intention to create trust by words or acts ;
(c) the purpose of the trust ;
(d) the trust property ; and
(e) the beneficiaries.
' All this should be proved in such a manner that it should be possible for a Court to administer the trust if any occasion arises."
6. I am quite clear in my mind that neither the two documents referred to by the learned counsel prove the essential ingredients of the trust as laid down in this precedent nor the learned Chairman while answering the reference adverted to the criteria as enjoined thereof for determining the evacuee trust character of the property.
7. The mere entry "Wakf Ahl-i-Hanood" in the Record-of-Rights, relied upon by the learned counsel is not sufficient to establish that the property in dispute is an evacuee trust property. It was necessary for the petitioner to have brought evidence on the record relating to the constitution of the trust, aims and objects thereof and so also the beneficiaries thereunder. In Divisional Evacuee Trust Committee v. Abdullah (2), mere entry in a sale deed regarding the trust was not considered sufficient to establish the existence of trust. In Syed Abdus Saleem v. The Chairman. Evacuee Property Trust Board (3) after exhaustive discussion of the case-law on the subject, entries in the revenue record were not considered sufficient to provie the trust. It is well settled that the Record- of-Righrs maintained by the Revenue Department cannot be considered to be a document of title.
The entire record was before the learned Revisional authority and after perusal thereof, the authority came to the conclusion that the evidence produced by the petitioner did not conclusively prove {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1969 Lab. 243 (2) 1970 SCMR 503 (3) PLD 1976 Lah. 960 {{FOOT NOTE}} that the property in question was evacuee trust property. This finding has been assailed by the learned counsel on the ground that the learned Revisional authority failed to discuss the evidence.
It may be so. But 1 am of the view that the impugned order may be a little deficient in contents but it does not lack in soundness. Undeniably, the learned Joint Secretary had the jurisdiction to decide the matter in exercise of this jurisdiction, even if an erroneous decision was given by him, that cannot be disturbed in these proceedings. In Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others (1) it was laid down that :- "It is well settled that where a Court or a Tribunal had jurisdiction and it determines that question, it cannot be asid that it acted illegally, or with material irregularity, merely because it came to an erroneous decision on a question of fact or even of law."
8. While this order was being dictated, the learned counsel requested for permission to amend the writ petition and implead the D Evacuee Trust Property Board as a petitioner. As the request is an afterthought and the writ petition otherwise is also not maintainable, the request has been disallowed.
9. For all these reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition. Dismissed in limine. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(I) PLD 1974 SC 139 {{FOOT NOTE}}