1. ' SYED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, J.---The petitioner through this petition has claimed the following reliefs: "(a) To declare that the order dated 1-12-1982 passed by the respondent No,3 and subsequent order dated 4-2-1985 passed by the respondent No,2 is illegal, void and without jurisdiction.
(b) To declare that the petitioner is lawful owner of the plot bearing No,89, Khayaban-e-Rahat, Defence Housing Authority, Karachi, by declaring that the plot in question is not abandoned property as declared in Gazette notification dated 12-6-1975 at serial No,18.
(c) To declare that the petitioner being a lawful owner of the property is entitled to enjoy all and full benefit of the plot.
(d) Any better additional relief/reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(e) Costs."
2. ' The facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that a plot of land bearing No,89, measuring 600 square yards, Khayaban-e-Rahat, Phase V, Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority was allotted to respondent No,4. The petitioner is a purchaser of the said plot. It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased the said plot at a total sale consideration of Rs,9,000 which was the prevalent market price for a similar plot. It is the further case of the petitioner that he paid full price of the said plot in pursuance of the agreement entered into between the parties. The respondent No,4 executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner which was duly registered on 19-2-1972. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent No,3 also wrote a letter to the said Society informing the Authority regarding the transaction by informing them that in future all reference, with regard to the aforesaid plot be made to the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that in pursuance of the sale agreement, all the original documents in respect of the said plot were also handed over to the petitioner by the respondent No,3.
3. ' The petitioner soon after was posted at Iran and came back in October 1973 and was posted in front at Sulemanki and then transferred to Azad Kashmir in October, 1974. Thereafter, for a short period, the petitioner was posted at Sialkot and thereafter in Iran. While the petitioner was in Iran, he wrote a letter to the Authority and sought permission for construction over the plot and the Authority in reply to the said letter, informed him through their letter dated 9-9-1979 that the plot was open for construction. It is alleged in the petition that the Authority did not inform the petitioner that the plot was declared as abandoned, as such the petitioner was not aware about the declaration of the respondent No,3, who through Gazette Notification informed that the plot in question is an abandoned property. It is his further case that in October 1981 he came to Pakistan and on account of sensitive duty, the petitioner could not attend his personal affaiRs, However, in the year 1982, he came to know that the plot in question had been declared as abandoned property and the same was taken over by the respondent No,3. The petitioner moved an application to the respondent No,3 on 14-2-1982 for restoration of the plot in question to him. The delay in moving the application was condoned by the respondent No,3 and the petitioner was allowed to contest the main application.
4. ' On 1-3-1982 the respondent No,3, after examining the documents submitted by the petitioner, recommended the case of the petitioner for transfer of the plot in question in his favour to the respondent No,2, who rejected the proposal of the respondent No,3 and on the basis of refusal to accept the proposal of the respondent No,3 by the respondent No,2, the respondent No,3.
5. Dismissed the application on 1-12-1983. The petitioner went in appeal before the respondent No,2.
6. Which was also dismissed on 4-2-1985. In these circumstances, the petitioner being aggrieved has filed the present petition.
7. ' In support of the above petition, Mr. Mumtaz Ahmed Shaikh raised the following contentions:--
(i) That the plot could not have been treated as abandoned property within the meaning of section 2(a) of the Act.
(ii) That the impugned orders are perverse and mala fide.
8. ' On the other hand, Mr. S.M. Nurul Hasan, learned counsel for the respondents Nos,1, 2 and 3 submitted that in terms of subsection (2) of section 5, the respondent No,2 could pass any order which it might think fit and that because of the above provision, the order cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction. Respondent No,4 though served remained absent.
9. Mr. Raja M. Irshad, learned counsel appearing for respondent No,5 adopted the submissions of Mr. S.M. Nurul Hasan.
10. ' We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length. It is not in dispute that the plot in question was declared and notified as abandoned property vide Gazette Notification dated 12-6-1975 at serial No,18. The petitioner filed an application under sections 13 and 14 of the Abandoned Properties (Management) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 14-2-1982 before the Deputy Administrator, Abandoned Properties. This application was accompanied with application under section 5 of the Limitation Act as there was delay in filing the application. The delay was condoned. The petitioner adduced oral as well as documentary evidence before the Deputy Administrator, Karachi. The Deputy Administrator in his proposal dated 1-3-1982 recommended the transfer of said plot in favour of the petitioner. The Board, after hearing the parties, decided that the case was not fit for confirmation under section 13(4) of the Act with the result that the Deputy Administrator rejected the claim of the petitioner. The Board observed that there is no instrument on record operative in law which confers the title of ownership on the petitioner.
11. ' Under section 2(f) "specified person" means a person who, at any time before the sixteenth day of December, 1971, was a citizen of Pakistan domiciled in the territories which, before the said day, constituted the Province of East Pakistan and who on or after that day has ceased or ceases to be a citizen of Pakistan and includes a company registered in the said territories the registered office of which has not been shifted in pursuance of the Companies (Shifting of Registered Office)
12. Ordinance, 1972 (V of 1972). According to this definition, "specified person" means who on or after that day has ceased or ceases to be a citizen of Pakistan.
13. ' Under section 3 of the Act, all abandoned properties shall vest and shall be deemed always to have vested in the Federal Government on and from the sixteenth day of December, 1971. It is, therefore, clear that it has to be seen that a citizen of Pakistan domiciled in the Province of East Pakistan has ceased or ceases to be citizen of Pakistan, this fact is material for the disposal of the present petition. It is the case of the petitioner that at the relevant time, both were serving at Mangla and in November 1971 the respondent No,4 offered to sell his said plot which offer was accepted by the petitioner. It is his further case that the petitioner purchased the said plot at a total consideration of Rs,9,000. The petitioner paid full price of the plot in question in pursuance of the agreement between the parties and in this behalf a General Power of Attorney was executed by the respondent No,4 in favour of the petitioner which was registered on 19-2-1972.
14. ' It is pertinent to note that the agreement was not in writing and even copy of the letter sent by the respondent No,4. To the respondent No,5 was not annexed to the petition. The General Power of Attorney is also silent about sale. It is a well-settled legal position that the General Power of Attorney is to be strictly construed.
15. ' The order of respondent No,2 is based on the ground that there is no instrument on record operative in law which confers the title of ownership on the petitioneRs, The entire case of Brig.
16. Muhammad Muzaffar hinges upon the power of attorney dated 19-8-1972 which per se does not confer any right on the petitioner at all. The respondent No,2 also observed that the plot in question was cancelled on 23-10-1972 from the name of the specific person, but no action was taken by the petitioner either in the capacity of attorney of the allottee or the vendee of the plot. These observations are not contrary to the record. Mr. Mumtaz Ahmed is unable to point out any misreading of the evidence.
17. ' The petitioner claims that he paid a sum of Rs,9,000 to the respondent No,4. It is pertinent to note that the respondent No, 4 had not executed any receipt containing terms of sale. The petitioner's case is that he agreed to purchase the plot in question. There is no iota of evidence about sale except the bare word of the petitioner. Mr. Mumtaz lastly submitted that the original title documents were handed over by the respondent No,4 to the petitioner. This was done in pursuance of oral sale agreement. This submission is devoid of force. Possibly the original documents were handed over to the petitioner in the capacity of attorney.
18. ' If upon these materials the respondent No,2 came to the fmding that the transaction was not proved, the finding of the respondents 2 and 3 can by no stretch of imagination be said to be based on no evidence or vitiated by any disregard of the accepted principles governing the appreciation of evidence.
19. ' This Court could not interfere with the findings of the respondents 2 and 3 even if upon the same facts a different view could be taken. There was neither any jurisdictional defect nor any contravention of any fundamental principle in arriving at the impugned findings.
20. ' The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no substance in the petition, which is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
21. ' The above are the reasons for the short order dated 17-11-1991 dismissing the petition on conclusion of the arguments.