' Imam Din petitioner is admittedly the owner of a property bearing No,E/263, Arifabad on Baidian R oad, Lahore, measuring about 2 Kanals, consisting of a few rooms and a boundary wall. He had rented it out for privately-managed school. It was taken over by the Government of Punjab under Martial Law Regulation No,118 in the year 1972 and the Private Management was replaced by respondents Nos,2 to 4. Subsequently the property was requisitioned by respondent No,1 under the relevant provisions of West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property Act, 1956 for the purpose of running a school and respondents Nos,2 to 4 have been actually running a school known as "Government Rehnuma Primary School" therein.
2. With the passage of time the building allegedly became dilapidated and dangerous for human use on account of lack of repair and a former M.P.A. Of the area donated a plot of land on which a new building for the school was constructed. So there was a move for shifting the school to the new building and ultimately the Government at the level of the Chief Minister decided to de-requisition the disputed property and decided to shift school. It is obvious from the letter, dated 12-11-1991 (Annex. D) addressed by Section Officer (P) of Education Department to the Director of Education Lahore, and de-requisitioned order issued by the Home Department as mentioned in the letter, dated 16-6-1992 (Annex. E) and (Annex. Ell) addressed by the Under Secretary (Judl.) of Home Department to the Section Officer (Spl. Edu.) Education Department, and letter, dated 20-6-1992 (Annex. F) addressed by the Section Officer (Spl. Edu.) Education Department addressed to DPE Schools, Director of Education, Lahore, and District Education Officer (M), Lahore Cantt. (respondent No,3) asking them to deliver the vacant possession of the disputed premises to the petitioner , being its owner. In the subsequent letter, dated 13-7-1992 (Annex. G), Under Secretary (P) of Education Department again asked respondent No,3 to comply with the orders of the Government and deliver the possession of the premises to its owner as the Government was faced with the problem of paying rent to him but respondents Nos,3 and 4 are not complying with these orders, hence this writ petition.
3. On 23-8-1992, when this petition was being handled by another Bench, the learned Advocate- General was called at the limine stage and handed over the copy of C.M. No,3 of 1992 and asked to take up the matter with the respondents and enter appearance on the next date of hearing. This was an application requesting for the immediate delivery of possession to the petitioner pursuant to the order of the Government as, on account of heavy rains, the entire building was likely to collapse. The writ petition was then listed for 1-9-1992 and none from the respondents, excepting the Headmaster of Government Rehnuma Primary School, Arif Abad, Lahore Cantt. (respondent No,4) put in appearance. He took up the position that MPA of the area wanted to purchase the school building for the purpose of school and he was negotiating with the petitioner. Petitioner's counsel, however, repudiated what was stated by respondent No,4.
4. It was observed that on account of the attitude of the Law Officer (who despite undertaking to appear did not put in appearance) and his clients, perhaps they were not interested in filing parawise comments to the writ petition and it was admitted to regular hearing. Notice was directed to be issued to respondents Nos,1 to 3 as respondent No,4, had accepted the notice being already present in the Court.
5. Today Mr. Farooq Bedar, the learned Additional Advocate-General, has put in appearance on behalf of respondents Nos,] to 4. Respondents Nos,3 and 4 are also present. The learned Law Officer, with reference to various orders passed by the Government, which have been referred to above, submits that respondents Nos,3 and 4 must comply with the orders of the Government (respondents Nos,1 and 2). However, from the attitude of respondents Nos,3 and 4 it appears that they are not willing to vacate the disputed premises on the plea that they cannot shift a large number of students to place where there is no shelter for them. Respondent No,4 states that parents of the students, who gathered on the spot in large number, do not permit him to shift their wards elsewhere and they have approached the Chief Minister of the Punjab, who is likely to reconsider his earlier decision of derequisitioning the disputed building and shilling the school elsewhere.
6. After hearing him, the learned Additional Advocate-General has sought adjournment in order to contact Secretary, Education Department (respondent No,2) and get further instructions from him but his request has been strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner who submits that it is only a delaying tactic being adopted by him.
7. Sufficient opportunity was available to the Law Officers to get instructions from the Government and there is no justification for the learned Additional Advocate-General to request for further adjournment, particularly, when the orders of the Government available on the record are very clear. The Home Department on the request of the Education Department has already notified the derequisitioning of the disputed property in deference to the policy decision taken by the Chief Minister of the Punjab and the question of its reconsideration at this stage does not arise. It appears that respondent No,3 and especially respondent No,4, on account of their sheer intransigence, are not obeying the orders of the Government to vacate the disputed premises and handover its vacant possession to the petitioner who is undoubtedly its owner. This is a clear defiance of the authority of their superior tantamounting to gross misconduct on their part and injurious to the discipline and good order in Government service. It seems that respondents Nos,3 and 4, particularly respondent No,4, who has direct contacts with the parents of the students, in collusion with them, does not want to shift the school from the disputed premises for some reasons best known to him and he is defying the orders of his superioRs, I am afraid, these two officials, who may have support of some political personality arc likely to create difficult situation, may be law and order situation, while delivering the possession which they are bound to deliver to the petitioner, who has, in view of their intransigence, taken the ultimate course of invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
8. In view, of the above, the writ petition is accepted with costs of Rs,2,000 to be shared by respondents Nos,3 and 4 equally and paid from their own pockets. They are directed to deliver the vacant possession of the disputed A property to the petitioner within a week, failing which they shall have to face the legal proceedings for the non-compliance of this order and Assistant Commissioner, Lahore Cantt. Shall, with the help of police, get the vacant possession of the disputed premises delivered to the petitioner within a further period of one week.