' The property involved in this writ petition is owned by the petitioner, Sakhawat Ali Siddiqui and was being used as a school when it was requisitioned by the Provincial Government under subsection
(1) of section 3 of the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the said Act. The order of its requisition has been challenged by the petitioner by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction-of this Court.
2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the disputed property was already in possession of the Provincial Government and was being used as a school when it was requisitioned and, therefore, the order of requisition was of no legal effect. He placed reliance on Muhammad Tufail v. Province of Punjab and 5 others.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents namely, Province of Punjab and others, did not dispute the fact that the property in question was in possession of the Provincial Government at the time of its requisition. He was, however, not satisfied with the interpretation of the provisions of the said Act as given in the case of Muhammad Tufail. In that case it was held that the said provisions can be pressed into service only when a person other than Government or its employees or offices or educational institutions occupy the property sought to be requisitioned but the property already in possession of the Government for use of educational institutions cannot be requisitioned. This view, according to the learned counsel, is not correct.
4. While deciding the case of Muhammad Tufail, Aftab Hussain, J., as he then was, gave elaborate reasons for holding that the property possessed by the Government cannot be requisitioned by it. I, with respect, endorse his reasoning and follow the view expressed by him. The result, therefore, is1 that since, in the present case, the Government was, admittedly, in possession of the disputed property at the time of its requisition, the order of its requisition is without jurisdiction.
5. This constitutional petition is, accordingly, accepted, with costs, and the order relating to the requisition of the disputed property is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. PLD 1978 Lah. 87