1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.--This petition seeks leave to appeal against an order made by a Division Bench of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan on the 13th of May 1975, whereby a Constitution Petition filed by the respondent Akhund Abdul Latif regarding the requisitioning of his house was accepted, and the present petitioner was given a period of three months to hard aver vacant possession to the owner.
2. The house in dispute is situate is Garden East, Karachi. Its ground floor was requisitioned by the Estate Karachi, under Sind Requisition of Land Act, 1947, by an order made on the 14th of June, 1949.
3. The owner filed are app, which was hoard by the then Administrator of Karachi and disposed of by his order dated the 28th of November, 1950, observing that there was urgent requirement for accommodating the foreign diplomats, and, therefore, the house could not be released, but he expressed the hope that "it will be possible for the Estate Office to release this accommodation after a year or so when more buildings are constructed by the Government of Pakistan." As a result, the house continued in the occupation of the Estate Officer of the Government of Pakistan, and was allotted to other Government servants after Karachi ceased to be the Federal Capital and the accommodation was not required for foreign diplomats. At the time the case was heard by the High Court, it was stated that the requisitioned premises were being occupied by an Assistant Informa--tion Officer of the Department of Films and Publications.
4. Sometime during the occupation of the property by the Estate Office, the owner was served with a notice by the Collector of Karachi to show cause why the plot in ,question should not be forfeited as illegal construc--tion, without the permission of the Collector, had been raised on the plot. The owner being unaware of this illegal construction, which apparently was carried out bf the allottee of the house under the Estate Office of the Government of Pakistan, the respondent made representation to the Collector, whereby the lease of the plot was renewed but the owner was called upon to pay additional Malikana.
5. It was in these circumstances that the owner invoked the writ jurisdic--tion of the High Court, praying that the order of requisitioning the ground floor of the property be declared illegal and mala fide, and a declaration be also granted that the forfeiture of the plot and its restoration on enhanced Malikana by the Collector of Karachi, were without lawful authority. The High Court has accepted this petition on the ground that in the appellate order of the Administrator of Karachi it was contemplated that the requisitioning would last for about a year or so, and it was also made clear that the purpose- of the requisitioning was to accommodate foreign diplomats, but the said purpose had ceased to exist long ago and the house had not been vacated by the Estate Officer.
6. The learned Judges also took note of the fact that in 1965 there was a policy directive that properties should not be kept under requisition for more than ten years but even then this house was not de-requisitioned before the policy was modified after three years. Finally, the learned Judges have also set aside the order of forfeiture of the lease made by the Collector, as the owner was not given an opportunity 'of being heard, and he had been prevented from demolishing the unauthorised construction by the allottee of the Estate Office.
7. In seeking leave to appeal, Mr. Mohammad Afzal Lone submits that the judgment of the High Court raises an important question of law as to the legality of the continuance of an order of requisitioning, for public purpose, even though the original need may have disappeared and sub-- stituted by another requirement In the public interest. Learned counsel contents that the mere hope expressed in the appellate order of the Administrator of Karachi had no binding effect on the requisitioning authority, ace did not specify any period for the requisitioning. Finally, Mr. Lone contends that the fact that the Collector of Karachi took penal action against the owner of the property, for an alleged illegal construction, had no bearing on the validity of the requisitioning order.
8. After hearing the learned counsel and considering- the facts of the case, we are of the view that this its not a fit case for the grant of special leave to appeal. We have seen that in the appellate order of the Administrator of Karachi, the hope was expressed that the requisitioning would last for about a year or so, and the order was upheld primarily for the reason that the accommodation was needed for foreign diploma who were then called upon to reside in 'Karachi as the Federal Capital. The observations made by the appellate authority were entitled to respect and consideration by the requisitioning authority, even though they were not binding on him under the law in view of the terms in which they were expressed but no consideration was given to these observations and instead the property was not released even when the Central Government itself bad issued a policy directive that property should not be kept under requisition for more than ten years. We also find that the owner was put to considerable hardship' m having to defend the continuation of hi lease on account of an illegal construction raised by an allottee under the Estate Officer of the Government of Pakistan. The property having admittedly continued in the possession of the Estate Officer, it is clear that the unauthorised construction was railed by an allottee viz. One of the Government servants residing in the property, but the owner was called upon to face the, consequences. 'In these circumstances, the act of requisi--tioning had Indeed assumed a harshness of which the High Court rightly took note and granted relief to the owner.
9. We do not find this at all a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal and accordingly dismiss this petition.