' The facts relevant for the decision of this Constitutional petition are that the petitioner who is owner of property commonly known as SXXII-1-S-4 Ichhra, Lahore. The same was in occupation of Rizvi Girls Middle School, Ichhra, Lahore on the eve of nationalization of schools. Therefore, the same was requisitioned by respondent No, 2 through Requisition Order dated 29-4-1978 placed as Annexure 'A' on the file. The case of the petitioner is that the building was in a dilapidated condition and was ultimately demolished on 16-7-1992 and the school in the first instance was temporarily shifted to Government Primary School, Ichhra, Lahore. Thereafter, new building was constructed out of the discretionary funds for education purposes placed at the disposal of the local M.P.A. The same is situated in Chaudhary Colony. The petitioner moved respondent No,2 through application dated 28-12-1992 Annexure 'D' and requested for derequisition. The respondent failed to attend to the request of the petitioner, therefore, after waiting for nearly two years he was constrained to file their Constitutional petition. The same came up for limine hearing on 15-2-1995 when the representatives of respondents Nos.2 and 3 were directed to appear with record on 27-2-1995 but the order was not complied with. Thereafter, respondent No,2 was directed to submit report and parawise comments within three weeks and to ensure that some responsible official fully conversant with the facts of the case and law is present alongwith complete record on the next date. The petition was relisted for 4-4-1995 but neither the report and parawise comments were submitted nor responsible official conversant with law and facts of the case was present. However, Section Officer of the Home Department appeared. Thereafter, the petition was admitted to hearing. The respondents have appeared through Raja Saeed Akram, A.-A.G., who has contested the petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition argued that the order of requisition dated 29-4-1978 was patently illegal because the property was already in possession of the Government, therefore, the same could not be requisitioned. The learned counsel in this behalf has relied on the judgment reported as Province of Sindh and others v. Syed Saifur Rehman and others (1986 SCMR 1332), Muhammad Tufail v. Province of Punjab and 5 others (PLD 1978 Lahore 87) and Mst. Shahnaz Begum and others v. Home Department and others (1991 CLC 1188). These judgments were noted in a recent decision of this Court in W.P. No, 5537 of 1992, decided on 30-11- 1993. The next argument is that the petitioner has not been paid any rent since 1992, therefore, the requisition order has ceased to be operative. In this behalf reliance is placed on the case reported as Province of the Punjab v.Amin Jan Naeem and 4 others (PLD 1994 SC 141). It is argued that the school has been shifted firstly temporarily and thereafter it has been housed in the premises constructed for this purpose. The arguments are summed up with the submission that respondent No,2 has failed to attend to the grievance of the petitioner and the sole object of the respondents was to make the petitioner to pay illegal gratification and the respondent No,2 was playing in the hands of the subordinate officials of his own department and that of the Education Department.
3. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Advocate-General argued that the premises were demolished when the school was closed for Summer Vacation without the permission of the Education Department. It is added that efforts to get a case registered did not bear any fruit. It is argued that the Education Department has moved the Collector for acquisition of the land.
4. Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Bhatti, Deputy Secretary (Legal) of respondent No,2 has explained that the application/representation of the petitioner dated 28-12-1992 could not be disposed of as the comments from the Education Department were not received. It is added that the requisition order was made on the move of Education Department, therefore, respondent No,2 waited for their comments.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on both sides. I am of the considered opinion that this is too late in the day to determine the vires of the Requisition Order dated 29-4-1978. Even otherwise the petitioner has accepted the order and acted upon the same, therefore, he cannot challenge it. The only question which requires determination is whether the Requisition Order in respect of the 'building' still continued to be in force even after the building has been completely demolished. Therefore, before proceeding any further, it is worthwhile to refer to the definition of 'building' and the provisions as to requisition of property as contained in The West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred as Act of 1956). The 'building' has been defined in section 2(1) of the Act of 1956 as under:-- "'Building' means any building or part of a building and includes any land, godowns or outhouses attached to it;"
' While the provision as to the 'requisitioning of property' is contained in section 3 which reads as under:-- "Requisitioning of property.--(1) If in the opinion of the Provincial Government it is necessary or expedient to requisition any building for the use of any of its officers or offices, the Provincial Government may by order in writing requisition any building and may make such further orders as appear to it to be necessary or expedient in connection with the requisitioning: ' Provided that no building used for the purpose of religious worship or imparting education and no building situated in a cantonment within the meaning of Cantonments Act, 1924, shall be requisitioned under this Act: ' Provided further that no building which is an evacuee property shall be requisitioned except with the prior approval of the Central Government: ' Provided also that if a building is in occupation of any person, no order for its requisitioning shall be passed unless a notice of, at least, two weeks is given to the occupant to show cause against the action 'proposed to be taken and if and when an order of requisitioning is passed, the occupant shall be allowed a period of one month, at least, to vacate the building and such occupant shall thereupon comply with the order: ' Provided that no owner in occupation of a house shall be required to vacate it. .
(2) If the notice mentioned in the third proviso to subsection (1) cannot be served on the occupant personally, affixation of the notice on a conspicuous part of the building or service by means of a proclamation or by means of a notice in the official Gazette and local press shall be deemed to be sufficient service for the purpose of this section.
(3) Where the Provincial Government has requisitioned any building under subsection (1), it may use or deal with it in such manner as may appear to it to be expedient."
It is clear from the Requisitioning Order dated 29-4-1978 that it was in respect of a building. Now the petition is that the 'building' is no longer in existence, therefore, the Requisitioning Order has abated or ceased to be in force. It is relevant to mention here that in the Act of 1956 there is no provision for reconstruction of the 'premises'. There is a provision for additions or structural alterations or improvements only. The same is contained in subsection (4) of section 5 which reads as under:-- "(4) The Provincial Government may, if it considers necessary or expedient, make additions or structural alterations or improvements to the building at its own cost, with previous approval of the owner obtained in writing. The owner shall not be liable to contribute towards the cost of such additions or structural alterations or improvements nor shall the amount so spent be deducted out of the compensation awarded. The owner shall not be allowed any increase in compensation on account of such addition or structural alterations or improvements."
Therefore, it is clear that the premises cannot be reconstructed by the Provincial Government. The reconstruction is not something as "additions, structural alterations or improvements". Therefore, there was no purpose in keeping the matter pending.
6. This is not all. Even during the pendency of this petition the interest taken by the respondents is not commendable. It should be clearly understood that public servants are paid from the public exchequer and their sole purpose is to serve the citizens and perform the duties enshrined in the law of the land. They are not to adore the temple of administration and make receptions colourful.
The difficultly is that respondent No,2 did not apply his mind to the request of the petitioner. He kept on waiting for feeding from the subordinates who had their own objects in dealing with the matters of the citizens. It is expected that in future on one hand such indifferences will not be shown to the grievance of the citizens and on the other hand, the subordinate officials shall be controlled and made to work.
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that the Requisitioning Order dated 29-4-1978 stands abated and is no longer in force. Therefore, the writ E petition is misconceived. The same is accordingly disposed of. There is no order as to costs.