' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.--- By this single judgment I intend to dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.3119, 3120, 3122, 3123 and 3124 of 2006 as common question of law and facts are involved in all these connected matters.
2. Through this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 26-3-2005 and 8-11- 2005 passed by respondent No,2 Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board Lahore and that of respondent No,1 Secretary to Government of Pakistan Ministry for Minority Affairs Division Government of Pakistan Islamabad dated 2-6-2006. Respondent No,2 as Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board Government of Pakistan Lahore has declared the impugned property as evacuee trust property through his above-mentioned orders and the revision filed by the petitioner before respondent No,1 was dismissed on 2-6-2006.
3. Brief facts of the case are that disputed property situated in Survey No,1610-1612 Ahata No,20 total land measuring 23 marlas and 4 Sarsai Peoplewali Gali Sharqi Line Dhaban Bazar Bahawalnagar was owned by Hindus. After partition the said property was declared as Evacuee Property and subsequently the property measuring 4 marlas and seven sarsai was allotted in favour of the petitioner vide permanent transfer order. The petitioner also purchased the property from Government Settlement Department and Khushi Muhammad son of Sharaf and since then the petitioner is owner in possession of the property.
4. The Assistant Administrator Evacuee Trust, Property Bahawalnagar filed a petition under sections 8 and 10 of the Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act XIII of 1975 before the Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board, Lahore praying therein that the impugned property be declared as evacuee trust property. Respondent No,2 vide order dated 26-3-2005 declared it evacuee trust property. The petitioner filed revision petition before respondent which was accepted and the case was remanded for fresh decision before respondent No,2. He again on 8-11-2005 declared the impugned property as Evacuee Trust Property, therefore, the petitioner filed revision petition under section 17 of the Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 ' before respondent No,1, who vide order dated 2-6-2006 dismissed the revision petition, hence this writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no notice was issued to the petitioner prior to the impugned orders; that the petitioner was condemned unheard; that the respondents have passed the orders without relying upon any .Cogent evidence and valuable material. Lastly argues that the findings given by the respondents are not based upon reliable evidence.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents states that respondents have exclusive jurisdiction to declare any property to be an evacuee trust property and no court has jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings against their decisions.
7. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
8. I have noticed that respondent No,2 while deciding the matter has not given his findings on the basis of any reliable evidence. He relied upon the alleged settlement survey record for the year 1959, that the questioned property was entered as Mandar. I have also noticed that in the Revenue Record for the year 1950-51 and 1958-59 this property was entered in the ownership of Doonl Chand Bahania caste Brahmin. Thereafter in the year 1962-63 the ownership of the property was entered in the name of Central Government and the name of the occupant refugees since 1947 of the said property. Further noted that there are some entries in the Revenue Record in the year 1910- 1913 with regard to the statement of Dooni Chand and approval of the impugned property in favour of Dooni Chand. On the basis of these noting respondent No,2 declared it evacuee trust property.
Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that on the basis of these noting property cannot be declared to be an evacuee property, for the determination of the nature of trust property in the light of judgment pronounced by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled Government of Pakistan through Secretary Religious and Minority Affairs, Islamabad 'and another y Nizamuddin through Legal Heirs and another (1994 SCM R 1908). The relevant portion of the judgment for ready reference is reproduced as under:--- "Determination of nature of property by the Chairman of the Board. Neither any trust deed in respect of the property was available nor any evidence was led to show that the property in question was attached to any religious, charitable or educational trust or the income arising from the said property was applied to a trust created for religious, charitable or educational purposes, extract of survey register relied upon did not indicate whether the property in question was a religious, charitable or an educational trust or it was attached to any of the trust of such a nature.
Held in the absence of any evidence to show the nature trust or to prove the fact that the income arising from the property was being applied to charitable, religious or educational purposes, the order passed by the Chairman of the Board holding the property as an evacuee trust property was an arbitrary order based on no evidence
9. In case in hand also respondent No,2 has not referred or relied any such record. Admittedly, there is no trust deed in respect of property. There is also no evidence that the property was attached to any religious, charitable or educational trust. Further that if transfer order has been passed in favour of the petitioner by the Settlement Department, it would be deemed to have been validly transferred and Chairman Evacuee Trust Property will have no jurisdiction to claim that property to be evacuee in the light of judgment cited as Chairman, Evacuee Property Trust Board v. Munir Khan and others (NLR 1992 AC 204). Further in the light of judgment of this court reported as Deputy Administrator Evacuee Trust Property Lahore v. A.R. Chaudhary and 4 others (1981 CLC 1006) mere entry of Wakf Ahl-i-Hunood in record of rights is not sufficient to establish; property as evacuee trust property. It was necessary for the petitioner to have brought evidence on the record relating to constitution of the trust, aims and objects thereof and so also the beneficiaries there under.
10. The law referred by the learned counsel for the respondents reported as Anees Ahmed v.
Secretary Ministary of Minorities and Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan and others (2010 SCM R 1078) is not applicable to the facts of the case as in that case august Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that where just proceedings regarding its allotment were initiated in favour of the petitioner in that case, therefore, petitioner of referred case has no locus standi to challenge the proceedings of Evacuee Trust Property Board, whereas in case in hand there is a permanent transfer order by Settlement Department and registered sale-deed in favour of the petitioner. He has legal right to challenge the action and orders passed by respondents No,1 and 2.
11. In the light of above circumstances, I have no hesitation in my mind especially in the light of pronouncement of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case (1994 SCM R 1908). The orders rendered by respondents Nos.1 and 2 are not based on any material which can be relied upon or have been passed in the light of pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Just on the basis of any entry in the Revenue Record or Settlement Record, it cannot be declared as evacuee trust property. The responden6 have not denied from the transfer order and registered sale-deed of the suit property in favour of the petitioner by the valid transferee from the Settlement Department.
12. Objection of bar of jurisdiction with regard to the courts is concerned, the bar contained in special statutes, ever is preferable to the court established under general law. The High Court while exercising constitution jurisdiction does not come in the ambit of court, the jurisdiction of which has been curtailed by any other law.
13. Even otherwise the civil court has also jurisdiction to check the validity of any order passed by any authority judicial quasi judicial or any tribunal on the touchstone whether these orders have been passed with jurisdiction provided with official authority or tribunal in accordance with jurisdiction given in the statute or not, in spite of the fact baring provisions of jurisdiction of civil court is available in that statute.
14. The petitioner has locus standi to challenge the action or orders of respondents. When any vested right is available with any person that cannot be taken without any legal justification and for denial of any vested right sufficient material and sound evidence as well as full jurisdiction is required. In case in hand I have noticed that all these powers are not available with respondents when right of petitioners were not denied or there is nothing wrong attributable to the petitioners, thus valuable rights of petitioners cannot be taken on the basis of any report of the lower staff or entry made in the Revenue Record which has no basis.
' In the light of what has been discussed above, I allow these writ petitions and set aside the orders dated 26-3-2005, 8-11-2005 and 2-6-2006 passed by the respondents.