' IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI J.--- A piece of land measuring 180-kanals 1-marla in property No,S-86- R-207, was leased out by the Government of Punjab in favour of Pakistan Cricket Board for construction of International Standard Cricket Stadium for holding the World Cup, 1996 by means, of a lease deed registered on 03.05.1995 with the Sub-Registrar Model Town, Lahore, initially for a period of forty years against a token rent of Rs,1000/- per-year. This property is commonly known as Gaddafi Stadium.
2. The Taxation Department for the period from 1996 to 2004 demanded the property tax worth Rs,3663313.00 from the Pakistan Cricket Board with regard to the leased property.
3. Pakistan Cricket Board claiming an exemption from levy of property tax filed an appeal before respondent No,2-Director Excise and Taxation, Zone-VI, Lahore, which was dismissed on 30.09.2004.
4. Such dismissal of appeal was challenged by means of a Constitutional petition viz. Writ Petition No, 2185 of 2005, which was withdrawn on 01.06.2005, in order to enable the Cricket Board to file a revision petition as provided under Section 10(2) of The Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'), which was subsequently filed before the revisional authority i,e, Executive District Officer (Revenue), Lahore, which too was dismissed on 09.06.2006 and this time, the revisional order was called in question through the present Constitutional petition before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Board has mainly depended his arguments in support of the exemption from levy of any property tax by referring Section 4(a) and (e) of the Act, which provides an exemption; firstly; with reference to the buildings and lands other than those leased in perpetuity by the Federal Government, and secondly public parks, playgrounds and libraries. The petitioner has mainly placed reliance on a case decided with reference to National Stadium Karachi by erstwhile Sindh High Court in case reported as Pakistan Cricket Board through Manager, National Stadium, Karachi and others v. Director-General Excise and Taxation and others (2011 CLC 1894) with a submission that the petitioner-Board is placed similarly with reference to Gaddafi Stadium, as it was determined in National Stadium's case.
6. The learned A.A.G., on the other hand, appearing for the respondents, with reference to the definition of 'property', playground and Stadium, lease in perpetuity and the effect of amendments in the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958, by virtue of Punjab Finance Ordinance, 2002, substituting Section 4(b) of the Act, providing exemption from levy of property tax to the buildings and lands other than those leased in perpetuity owned and administered by the Government of the Punjab, has argued that, no exemption is available to the petitioner, particularly, keeping in view clause-xii of the lease deed, it is the petitioner and none else, who is liable to pay the property tax as per demand of the respondents.
7. Admittedly, property detailed above was taken on lease by the Pakistan Cricket Board for a minimum initial period of forty years and clause-xii of the lease deed is of much significance, which is reproduced herein-below:- "The lessee shall pay and discharge all rates, taxes, charges and assessments of every description which are now or may at any time hereafter be imposed, charged or assessed by the Government, Lahore Development Authority/Lahore Metropolitan Corporation on the property or the buildings, structure, amenities established or erected."
8. In order to better understand the proposition, under discussion, it would be advantageous to see the import of the exemption clause i,e, Section 4 of the Act, providing exemption to certain properties from levy of property tax. The National Stadium Karachi was given exemption from payment of property tax within the meaning of Section 4(a) of the Act. There is a vast difference in between two leases i,e, lease for National Stadium and lease for Gaddafi Stadium. In case of National Stadium, the Federal Government is the lessor, whereas, in case of Gaddafi Stadium, Provincial Government of Punjab is the lessor. Within the meaning of Section 4(a) of the Act, the buildings and lands other than those leased in perpetuity owned by the Federal . Government are exempted from levy of any property tax. Benefit of such exemption was extended in favour of the National Stadium in above-referred matter.
' The case of Gaddafi Stadium is altogether different. It is the lease from Government of Punjab and with regard to such lease, exemption can be asked for under Section 4(b) of the Act.
9. Earlier to 25.06.2002, (the date of promulgation of Punjab Finance Ordinance, 2002), the leased properties administered by the lessees were kept outside of the exemption clause but by virtue of Section 3 of the Finance Ordinance referred-above, section 4(b) of the Act was substituted and was reframed in the following manner:- "buildings and lands other than those leased in perpetuity owned and administered by the Government of the Punjab or a local Government as defined in section 2, clause (xvi) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 (XII of 2001)".
' The addition of word "administered" created much difference.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while arguing the matter, seems to be having this change in mind and perhaps for that reason, he was more interested in getting exemption for the period from 1996 to 2002 till the time, when on promulgation of the Punjab Finance Ordinance, 2002, the buildings administered by the Provincial Government, were exempted from the levy of property tax.
Admittedly, the leased property, known as Gaddafi Stadium, is wholly being administered by the Pakistan Cricket Board. According to the schedule attached by the petitioner with the petition, there are 70 shops in the leased property, which are part of Gaddafi Stadium, out of which 24 (twenty four) are stated to have been leased out, whereas, 43 (forty three) are rented out and 3 (three) are in the use of the Cricket Board. The Stadium also having 12 (twelve) offices, 5 (five) out of which are leased out, 4 (four) are rented out and 3 (three) are in the use of the Cricket Board, as per showing of the Board, itself. Also there is a restaurant, which is leased out by the Board. It is the case of the Board, itself, that the shops, marriage halls and other commercial activities available. At the site of Gaddafi Stadium, are being wholly administered by the Board and the Provincial Government has nothing to do even with such commercial activities or incomes being derived from such activities.
11. As far the exemption claimed under Section 4(e) of the Act, which is available for public parks, playgrounds and libraries is concerned, it is to be seen as to if Gaddafi Stadium falls within the definition of "playground". None, either the "Stadium" or "playground" is defined in the Act and for that we have to see the dictionary meanings of both these terms.
' According to Concise Oxford English Dictionary Twelefth Edition the word "playground" means an outdoor area provided for children to play on, whereas, the same term has been under-mentioned meaning in Chambers 21st Century Dictionary "an area for children's recreation, especially one that is part of a school's grounds, whereas, the term "Stadium" has distinctly been given meaning in Concise Oxford English Dictionary as an athletic or sports ground with tiers of seats for spectators, whereas, in. Chambers 21st Century Dictionary, the term "Stadium" is defined in the following manner:- a large sports arena in which the spectators' seats are arranged in rising tiers.
' Having such definition in consideration, it can easily be held that, Gaddafi Stadium having capacity of hundred and thousands of people, to be accommodated in the tiers of seats, available on the stairs, pavilion and other allied facilities also having commercial centres outside the Stadium under the uprising stairs cannot be given the status of a playground. The Stadium is not included in the properties exempted from levy of property tax within the meaning of Section 4(e) of the Act.
12. While this matter was being heard, another interesting aspect has been noted that in such fiscal statute, which is commonly known as Property Tax Act, the term "property" has not been defined in the principal statute; however we find the definition of such term of 'property' in Rule 2(iv) of The Urban Immovable Property Tax Rules, 1958, which means buildings and lands situated within a rating area. The Act only provides definition of the rating areas under Section 3 thereof. Exhaustive definition of the word "property" in the Act is the requirement, which may be taken notice by the relevant legislature.
' A learned Division Bench of Sindh High Court in the case referred above also has come to the conclusion that a Stadium is not a playground.
13. Reliance has also been placed by the petitioner on the case titled Muhammad Shafi v. Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Religious and Minority Affairs, Islamabad and 3 others (2002 M LD 1270), but again it would be of no help to the petitioner, as in the reported matter, it was the Federal Government, whose property was leased out and exemption was being claimed under Section 4(a) of the Act, which as noted herein-above, is not the case of Gaddafi Stadium, which property was leased out by the Provincial Government.
14. The upshot of above discussion is that the petitioner-Pakistan Cricket Board cannot enjoy the exemption from levy of property tax on the leased property, which is completely being administered by the Board and in view of the agreed terms of the lease, it is the Board, which is responsible to pay all the taxes and assessments of every description. The demand of the respondents, however, before 2002, when the properties administered by the Provincial Government itself and not by the lessees, for the first time, were included in the exemption clause and, therefore, it is held that after 2002, the petitioner-Board is liable to pay the Property tax (the property mentioned in detail in the opening of present order). The claim prior to 25.06.2002, as was raised by the respondents towards property tax would remain be exempted in favour of the petitioner-Board; however, thereafter, the petitioner-Board is bound to pay such property tax as is determined by the respondents.
15. With these observations, this writ petition, having no force, is dismissed.