This writ petition involves a factual controversy involving a servant quarter of evacuee trust property located in Lahore. The petitioner seeks the reversal of the revisional order of the Government of Pakistan in the Ministry of Religious and Minority Affairs in that behalf.
2. The brief facts leading to this litigation are that the upper portion of Flat No. 22, Ganga Ram Mansion, Lahore was allotted to Pirzada Muhammad Hassan as a tenant and after his death by order dated 28-6-1979 it was allotted to the petitioner who was the daughter of deceased tenant.
This was in pursuance of petitioner's application wherein she had prayed not only for the transfer of the tenancy of the flat but also for the possession of the servant quarter in dispute which was allegedly occupied by Muhammad Gulzar alias Boota respondent No. 5 in an unauthorised manner. The case came up before the Deputy Administrator (Urban) Evacuee Trust Property Board, Lahore who vide his order dated 1-4-1980 held that the disputed flat was a part of Flat No. 22 and since it was allotted to deceased Pirzada Amir Hassan and thereafter the same tenancy was transferred in favour of the petitioner as her daughter, therefore, she should be given its possession. This officer also held that Muhammad Gulzar was an unauthorised occupant. He was accordingly directed to vacate this quarter within seven days otherwise his eviction would be carried out through police help.
3. Muhammad Gulzar respondent No. 5 then filed an appeal against petitioner Mst. Iffat Anis for setting aside of the aforementioned order dated 1-4-1980 of the Deputy Administrator (Urban)
Evacuee Trust Property Board, Lahore before the Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property, Lahore. This officer by his order dated 9-12-1980 upheld the order of the Deputy Administrator and dismissed the appeal.
Thereafter, against the order of respondent No. 3, dated 9-12-1980 Muhammad Gulzar filed a revision petition before the Federal Government who vide order dated 25-10-1981 remanded the case to respondent No. 3 to decide the three questions posed in the said order. During the stage of pendency of the case before respondent No. 2, respondent No. 6 Noor-us-Saeed Lutfi occupant of the lower portion of the premises m dispute also got himself impleaded and became a party to the proceedings. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 by order dated 4-9-1986 decided the case in favour of the petitioner and against respondents Nos. 5 and 6 after holding that the disputed servant quarter formed part of the premises allotted to Mrs. Iffat Anis and directed that its possession be handed over to her after ejecting respondent Muhammad Gulzar alias Boota.
4. Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 then filed separate revisions before the Federal Government against the order of the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board which were decided by the Joint Secretary, Government of Pakistan Ministry of Religious and Minority Affairs vide his order, dated 10th December, 1986 in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction. This officer held that admittedly, respondent Noor-us-Saeed Lutfi was the tenant of the Board whereas respondent Gulzar Muhammad was in occupation of the disputed portion with permission of said Noor-us-Saeed. He also took note of the fact of the admission of Noor-us-Saeed petitioner that the other petitioner Muhammad Gulzar was in occupation of the quarter in question before occupation of the premises by Noor--us-Saeed or Mst. Iffat Anis. The contention of the writ petitioner was noticed that admittedly the quarter was not allotted to Mr. Noor-us-Saeed and moreover it was not necessary to mention the out houses etc. In the allotment order.
5. The revisional authority as is evident from a perusal of para. 4 of the impugned order deputed a team consisting of Mr. Nisar Ahmed Hashmi, a Section Officer of the Ministry, the Advocates of the parties and the Deputy Administrator Mr. Rustam to inspect the site. The team informed the revisional authority that the portion in dispute was accessable from the tenement of respondent Noor-us-Saeed only and not from the other tenement, that is, the one occupied by petitioner Mst.
Iffat Anis. There was no other access to the portion in dispute. The revisional authority accordingly directed that the disputed portion (servant quarter) shall remain attached to the tenement of Noor-us-Saeed respondent No. 6 and consequential changes be made in the document of lease of the parties.
6. This writ petition has been filed to call in question the validity of the revisional order of the Federal Government. I held pre-admission hearing in this case. The counsel for the parties appeared and the department also produced the record pertaining to the. Lease of this property.
7. During the hearing, an effort was made by the departmental representative and even the petitioner was given an opportunity to find out if the original plan for the sanctioned construction of the property could be made available so as to throw light on the real character of the servant quarter and its being appurtenant to anyone of the two portions i.e. The ground floor and the first floor. The efforts made m this behalf proved to be futile.
8. Before this Court, the jurisdiction of respondent No. 1 to hear and decide the revision was not disputed but the petitioner's counsel assailed the correctness of the decision. The crux of the litigation between the parties revolves around essentially a disputed question of fact.
9. This Court ordinarily does not, in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction, embark upon factual inquiries nor undertakes recording of evidence to resolve such factual controversies. The impugned order of respondent No. 1 shows that an exercise was undertaken to ascertain the facts objectively and to draw conclusions therefrom by the statutory factionary. There was a spot inspection carried out and the decision has been based on the consideration of the access to the servant quarter from the two portions of the premises in dispute. It has been found that the portion was only accessible from the tenement of respondent No. 6 and it was inaccessible from the flat portion occupied by the petitioner. This cannot be said to be an irrelevant consideration for the purposes of resolution of the factual dispute.
10. In view of what has been stated above I do not think that the order impugned can be held to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Respondent No. 1 enjoyed wide revisional powers and an effort appears to have been made to ascertain factual aspects in search of truth. The conclusion drawn by respondent No. 1 cannot be said to be based on irrelevant considerations. It also does not appear to be fanciful or arbitrary nor it can be said that this is of such a nature that no reasonable person could have arrived at it. This Court does not as a rule substitute itself for the Tribunal below. There is, therefore, hardly any scope for interference with the impugned order involving resolution of a disputed question of fact in exercise of this Court's Constitutional jurisdiction. 'this writ petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.
H.B.T./M-1519/L