1. ' ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.---This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 24-5-1976, passed by a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Sindh and Balochistan, Karachi, whereby the Intra- Court Appeal filed by the appellant herein along with others was dismissed in limine.
2. ' This case has a long and chequered history of litigation. It is not necessary, for the present purposes to go into details thereof. Suffice it to state that in 1938 an Association of Hindu residents of Karachi, for the protection and preservation of cattle, was registered as a company under section 26 of the Indian Companies Act. The licence referred to the objects as "promoting religion, charity or any other useful object" and prohibited the payment of any dividend to its members. This Association was called the Karachi Pinjrapore Association.
3. ' Upon the mass exodus of Hindu population in the wake of Partition, the property belonging to the Karachi Pinjrapore Association (to be referred to as the 'Association' hereinafter) was first declared as evacuee property on 28-1-1950 by the Additional Custodian (Judicial) Evacuee Property, Sindh and Federal Capital, Karachi. However, the Custodian of Evacuee Property, Sindh and Federal Capital, Karachi, on accepting the revision application of the Association, declared the property not to be evacuee property.
4. ' Subsequently, as a result of amendment in evacuee laws, fresh enquiries were made with the result that the Association was found to have become defunct, consequently it was declared evacuee and its property as evacuee property. As the Association failed to succeed before the Custodian in getting relief, in May 1956, it invoked the writ jurisdiction of the erstwhile West Pakistan High Court to challenge the adverse orders passed by the Custodian Authorities. This writ petition having been dismissed, a petition for special leave to appeal was filed in this Court, as well as direct petition by members of Hindu Community on a plea of violation of fundamental rights under Article 22 of the 1956 Constitution. The appeal arising out of the said petition for special leave i.e. Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1957 was decided on 31-1-1957 and is reported in PLD 1957 SC 83. It was held that the Association has undoubtedly become evacuee but the case was remanded to the Custodian, in order to determine the question whether the property was held in trust for religious or charitable purposes, for the income of such property according to section 6 (2) of Ordinance XV of 1949, has to be applied for carrying on the purposes of the trust. In view of this decision the direct petition of the Hindu Community was dismissed as withdrawn.
5. ' Thus, the matter stood remanded to the Custodian for enquiry and necessary action under the law. It is needless to mention the various steps taken and orders passed by several officers of the Custodian Organization. Suffice it to state that ultimately Mr. A.M. Jan, Custodian E.P., West Pakistan, by his order dated 26-3-1962 held that as the Association was founded for public purpose of a religious or charitable nature, all the properties acquired by it, whether by way of grant, gift or donations were (rust properties, As a result of this finding he proposed certain actions, in view of section 7 (3) of Act XII of 1957 which replaced Ordinance XV of 1949.
6. ' A scheme under section 16-A of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, having come into force, in the meantime, the management of the Association was taken over by the Divisional Evacuee Trust Committee appointed by the Evacuee Trust Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board').
7. ' The Board issued Notification dated 15-7-1963 enlisting Evacuee Trust Properties and inviting objections. The Karachi Hindu Panchayat, objected to the properties of the Association being included under the scheme as available for disposal under section 16-A of Act XXVIII of 1958. As no response was made to the objection raised, the Appellants herein filed Constitutional Petition No. 990 of 1963 in representative capacity for and on behalf of the Hindu Minority Community before the erstwhile Sindh and Balochistan High Court, at Karachi. It was claimed that the properties belonging to the Association, were not evacuee properties and had been wrongly taken over by the Board, as the same belonged to members of the Hindu Community of Karachi. Consequently directions were sought for restoration of the same. Other consequential relief was also sought. This Constitutional petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the erstwhile Sindh and Balochistan High Court at Karachi on 4-2-1976.
8. ' Being aggrieved the appellants herein alongwith other members of the Hindu Community filed an Intra-Court Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The main contention urged on behalf of the appellants was that it was only the trustees' interest in the trust properties held by the Association which had become evacuee property, whereas the properties as such had remained all along non-evacuee. This contention was, however, repelled by the learned Judges of the Division Bench. Referring to the fact that the Association was declared as an evacuee institution and its property an evacuee property as far back as 18th August, 1953, and the dismissal of the Constitutional petition to challenge the validity of the orders passed by the Custodian Department by the High Court as well as by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the learned Judges observed as here-under: ' In the circumstances it is not open to the appellants to re-open this issue. Even otherwise on merits there is no substance in the contention that on migration of the trustees only the trustees' interest became the evacuee and not the trust properties as is clear from the decision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of A.R. Niazi Advocate and others v. Pakistan and others (PLD.
9. 1958 SC 119) in respect of properties belonging to Dyal Singh Trust Society."
10. ' Another contention seeking to challenge the vires of the provisions of section 16-A of Act (XXVIII of 1958 and the scheme framed thereunder for the Management and Disposal of Properties attached to charitable, religious and educational trusts or institutions, as violative of Fundamental Right No.10 of the then 1956 Constitution was also rejected on the basis of an earlier judgment of the same Court in the case of Tekamdas Heranand v. Divisional Evacuee Trust Board and others (PLD 1968 Karachi 703). As observed earlier in this view of the matter, the learned Judges of the Division Bench, dismissed the Intra-Court Appeal in limine by the impugned judgment.
11. ' Being still dissatisfied, the present appellants challenged the judgment of the Division Bench in a petition for leave to appeal before this Court. The argument that the properties of the Association were non-evacuee in nature, because under the law only the trustees had become evacuees but not the trust properties, was not accepted by the Bench which heard the petition for leave to appeal. It was observed, that the Custodian had held on 26-3-1960, that these properties were evacuee trust properties and consequently they were to be managed in accordance with the provisions of section 7(2) of Act XII of 1957, which determination was not assailed and has therefore become final.
12. However, leave was granted to consider the question whether having regard to Article 10 of the 1962 Constitution, which now corresponds to Article 20 of the present Constitution, the properties in question could be utilized under the scheme framed under section 16-A of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, in contravention of the objects of the trust and without participation of the Hindu Community.
13. ' In support of this appeal Mr.. Zia Abbas, learned counsel for the appellant, sought to re-urge the first contention which was rejected at the hearing of the petition for leave to appeal. He repeatedly argued that the property of the Association, cannot be held to have become evacuee property merely because the trustees of the said trust properties had become evacuee themselves on account of their migration to India .
14. ' It is futile to re-examine this point as this question stands settled in the order refusing to grant leave on this point and we see no reason for holding a different view. Learned counsel was unable to show how the property could be held to be non-evacuee property in the face of an order passed by the Custodian on 26-3-1960, declaring the property to be evacuee property., We may further refer to the judgment of this Court dated 31-1-1957, referred to earlier , which is reported as Madhavji Dharasibhai v. Karachi Panjrapore Association (PLD 1957 SC (Pak) 83), in which it has been clearly held in the light of section 2 (2) of Ordinance XV of 1949 as amended by Acts VI and XXXI of 1951, that the Association itself had become evacuee. It was in the context that a reference was made to section 6 (2) of Ordinance XV of 1949 which deals with evacuee property held in trust for religious or charitable purposes. In view of these findings by the highest forum in the country, as long ago as 1957, it is idle to persue the point any further as regards the status of the Association and its properties.
15. ' As to the point on which leave was granted, learned counsel for the appellant referred to Article 20 of the present Constitution which guarantees the freedom to profess religion and to manage religious institutions to every citizen of Pakistan. He, however, did not show how the relevant law on the administration of evacuee trust properties is violative of Article 20. His only submission was that since the Custodian was empowered under section 7 of Act XII of 1957 to nominate new trustees in place of evacuee trustees, Hindus should be associated with the management of the trust properties of the Association.
16. ' Mr. Ali Akbar, learned A.O.R. Who appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 however pointed out that the administration of the properties now vests in the Divisional Committee constituted under the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975, and that the Custodian has nothing to do with the properties.
17. ' Learned counsel for the appellant, thereupon conceded that under the Board constituted under section 3 of the said Act of 1975, a Divisional Committee is managing the affairs of the trust properties and that one Jattomal is a member of that Committee. He submitted that it would be proper for the relevant authorities to appoint a Committee of Hidus to manage the property for the religious or charitable purposes of the Hindu Community for which the Association was established.
18. We are of the view that the learned counsel for the appellant has failed to make out a case of violation of the Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 20 of the Constitution, qua the law governing the administration of evacuee trust properties. .
19. ' It may be observed that the laws relating to evacuee properties and rehabilitation of displaced persons have been repealed by the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, which had the effect of repealing Act XII of 1957 and Act XXVIII of 1958, with the result that section 7 of the earlier enactment and section 16-A of the later enactment, which were relevant for the purposes of administration of evacuee trust property, are no longer on the statue book. Instead the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 has replaced those provisions and is the operative law relevant for such purpose. Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged any provisions of the said Act, nor was any attempt made to amend the grounds of appeal or seek permission to raise such a contention, therefore, the point on which leave was granted does not advance the case of the appellant.
20. ' One Shiri Mahant Mukhi Chatrumal has submitted an application as an intervenor to be impleaded as a party in this case, on the ground that he is the Chairman of All Pakistan Hindu Panchayat and a Member of the Religious Committee, as well as Chairman of Religious Committee of the Evacuee Trust Board, Zone-C, Sindh and Baiochistan, and claims to look after the Xarachi Pinjrapore Trust since 1946.
21. We cannot entertain such a belated request made in January 1991 in the present appeal which has been pending since 1977. If the claim set up by the intervenor in his application is correct. It appears to us that the Evacuee. Trust Board has constituted a Religious Committee and has appointed a Hindu gentleman who is the head of the Pinjrapore, to be the Chairman of the Religious Committee.
22. If anything, this fact tends to show that the Hindu Community is being associated with the management of the trust properties in the light of the objects of the Trust.
23. ' Be that as it may, we permitted the intervenor to address us and he has mainly made a grievance that the cows have been sold instead of being maintained and fed as required by the objects of the trust. This however is not a matter of which cognizance can be taken in the present appeal.
24. Similarly, if the appellants have any grievance with regard to the association of the Hindu Community, with the management of the trust properties, as voiced by the learned counsel for the appellant, they could well approach the relevant authorities for the redress of these grievances, but the present appeal is not the vehicle for ventilating such grievances in this Court.
25. ' For the foregoing reasons and with the aforesaid observations, we dismiss this appeal with no orders as to costs.