' MAMOON KAZI, J.---Respondent No,1, Saiyid Munirul Huda Chowdhury, was allotted Plot No,28 (Old No,90) situated on Street No,48, Islamabad, on 22-3-1966 by C.D.A., on payment of its full price. On 2-10-1975, the said plot was notified as abandoned property under section 11 of Abandoned Properties (Taking Over and Management) Act, 1975 and taken over by the Government of Pakistan.
The respondent, who was in Holland at that time, was informed accordingly on 26-9-1977. He represented against the declaration but his representation remained pending for want of certain documents. In the meanwhile, one Mst. Jamila Khatoon, taking advantage of the respondent's long absence from Pakistan, filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench) claiming ownership of the said plot. The writ petition was, however, dismissed, vide order dated 21- 5-1991.
2. Thereafter, the respondent filed a claim under section 14 of the said Act before the Deputy Administrator, Abandoned Properties and after the Deputy Administrator was satisfied about the respondent's claim as a citizen of Pakistan, by an order dated 2-6-1991, he ordered deletion of the plot from the list of abandoned properties.
3. The petitioner, however, on 21-6-1992 initiated suo motu proceedings of review under section 15(3) of the said Act and by order, dated 16-4-1995, its Chairman set aside the said order passed by the Deputy Administrator. It was held by the Chairman as follows:-- "On hearing the arguments advanced by the legal Adviser, BOT justifying the action taken by the Board while exercising suo motu revision and submissions made by the respondent with regard to his continued nationality of Pakistan, the Board is of the considered view that events of 1971 leading to the break-up of the country were of special nature on which special laws were enforced for revocation or retention of nationality by citizens of the two parts of the country. Under the provision of the Abandoned Property Management (Act XX of 1975) read with section 16(2) of Citizenship Act, 1978 Saiyid Munirul Huda Choudhry ceased to be a citizen of Pakistan at the time the property in question was declared as abandoned property. His subsequent acquisition of fresh nationality under section 20 of the Citizenship Act, 1978 lends him no support in so far as the property in question is concerned. The Board therefore, set aside the impugned order passed by the Deputy Administrator on 2-6-1991 and declares the property in question as abandoned property from the date it was notified as such."
4. The respondent being dissatisfied with the said order filed a constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench), which was allowed, vide judgment dated 9-4-1977, and the order passed by the petitioner was set aside. The reasons which weighed with the Court have been stated in the judgment thus:- "The petitioner left former East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) in 1971 on Pakistani Passport and obtained dual nationality of U.K. As well as Pakistan and continued to be so being a Commonwealth Citizen. Mere fact that the petitioner travelled on Pakistani Passport issued on 1969 from East Pakistan would also not make him a 'Specified Person' within the meaning of the Act is there were so many other Pakistanis who were found there and had got issued their Pakistani Passports for East Pakistan. The Board of Trustees has proceeded to decide the matter on conjectures and surmises with extraneous considerations. The petitioner was fighting his case for plot, whereas he was made by the Board of Trustees even to lose his citizenship .Of Pakistan, which was a very valuable right of every citizen. The approach of the Board of Trustees was clearly perfunctory in nature and the Board was oblivious of the repercussions involved in recording lacunic findings against the petitioner. The petitioner had already suffered a lot of agony for the last more than 25 years and it is high time that he should be rescued from further agony. The impugned order passed by the Board of Trustees is also violative of the Rule 11 of the Rules framed by the Federal Government under the Act, where revisional powers could be exercised only within thirty days of the order passed by the Deputy Administrator with the powers of Administrator, whereas the impugned proceedings were initiated much after lapse of prescribed.
5. We have heard Moulvi Anwarul Haq, the learned D.A.G., on behalf of the petitioner. Respondent No,1 argued the case himself.
6. The main question requiring determination is, whether respondent No,1 is a citizen of Pakistan, notwithstanding the fact that before the 16th day of December, 1971, he was domiciled in territories, which constituted the Province of East Pakistan. In this regard, it may be pointed out that, as per the respondent's case before the High Court, the respondent had business in Dacca prior to the said date, but he decided to move to West Pakistan, where he applied for allotment of a plot in Islamabad. According to the respondent, he came to Karachi in 1971 and on account of trouble which started in the former East Pakistan, he left for Germany on 23-4-1971. The fact that the respondent left Karachi on 23-4-1971 is confirmed by an entry made at page 8 of his Pakistani Passport, a copy of which has been filed by the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent claims to have moved to Holland and according to him, Capital Development Authority in Islamabad had been duly informed by him about the change of his address in Holland.
7. Moulvi Anwarul Haq has mainly relied upon the definition of "specified person" as contained in clause (f) of section 2 of the Abandoned Properties (Taking Over and Management) Act, 1975, as the same was subsequently amended by section 4 of Act XLV of 1976, vide Gazette Notification dated 15-6-1976. The said definition after its amendment reads as follows:-- "(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 purusance of the Companies (Shifting of Registered Office) Ordinance, 1972 (V of 1972)."
8. The learned D.A.G. Has further relied upon section 16-A of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, which was inserted in the said Act by section 2 of Pakistan Citizenship (Amendment) Ordinance, 1978 (Ordinance XI of 1978) published in the Gazette of Pakistan, dated the 18th March, 1978, which provides as follows:-- "16-A. Certain persons to lose and to retain citizenship.---(1) All persons who, at any time before the sixteenth day of December, 1971, were citizens of Pakistan domiciled in the territories which before the said day constituted the Province of East Pakistan and who--
(i) were residing in those territories on that day and are residing therein since that day voluntarily or otherwise shall cease to be citizens of Pakistan;
(ii) were residing in Pakistan on that day but after that day voluntarily migrated to those territories shall cease to be citizens of Pakistan;
(iii) were residing in Pakistan on that day and are voluntarily residing therein since that day shall continue to be citizens of Pakistan;
(iv) were residing in those territories on that day but voluntarily came to Pakistan after that day with the approval of the Federal Government shall continue to be citizens of Pakistan; ' Provided that any persons referred to in clause (i) whose repatriation to Pakistan has been agreed to by the Federal Government and who have not been so repatriated before the commencement of Pakistan Citizenship (Amendment) Ordinance 1978, shall continue to be citizens of Pakistan.
(2) Any 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 being under the protection of Pakistan passport, was on that day, or is residing in any country beyond those territories shall not be deemed to be a citizen of Pakistan unless, upon an application made by him to the Federal Government in this behalf the Federal Government has granted him a certificate that at the date of the certificate he is a citizen of Pakistan."
9. As is indicated by subsection (1) of section 16-A, its first two clauses refer to circumstances when a person living in territories which before the 16th day of December, 1971 constituted the Province of East Pakistan, would cease to be a citizen of Pakistan and the next two clauses indicate circumstances when such person would continue to be a citizen of Pakistan. No doubt, the respondent was domiciled in the territories which, before the 16th day of December, 1971, constituted the Province of East Pakistan, but there is nothing on record to show that, the respondent No,1, after the said date had continued to reside within, or subsequently migrated to such territories after the said date and had thus ceased to be a citizen of Pakistan. Moulvi Anwarul Haq has, however, referred to subsection (2) of section 16-A of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, which indicates that in order to succeed, the respondent was obliged to establish that, on or after the said date he had resided, under the protection of Pakistan Passport, in a country beyond the said territories, constituting the Province of East Pakistan. The petitioner under the said subsection was further obliged to obtain a certificate from the Federal Government, indicating that he was a citizen of Pakistan.
10. The case of the respondent, however, not only is that he had been residing in Europe on the said date under the protection of Pakistan Passport, and thus he did not reside during the period in question within such territories as are referred to in section 16-A as constituting the Province of East Pakistan, but such certificate had also been obtained by him from the Government of Pakistan on 26-7-1990 under section 20 of Pakistan Citizenship Act, certifying that the respondent. Was a citizen of Pakistan. A copy of such certificate has also been placed on record of the case. Moulvi Anwarul Haq has, however, referred to a letter of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Bangladesh dated 9-3-1994, indicating on an enquiry made in this regard that the respondent was a citizen of Bangladesh, but the respondent has explained that such certificate could have issued by the Bangladesh Government in a routine manner since the said respondent was a Bengali by birth.
However, the certificate of citizenship issued by the Government of Pakistan to the respondent after conducting an enquiry in this regard cannot be disregarded on the strength of the said letter issued by the Government of Bangladesh when the certificate appears to have been issued to the respondent, notwithstanding the said letter. Consequently, there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the said respondent had not ceased to be a citizen of Pakistan after the 16th day of December 1971. The finding of the Chairman of the petitioner to the effect that certificate of citizenship obtained by the respondent could be of no avail to him, as the same had not been obtained by him at the time when the plot in question had been declared 'abandoned property', cannot be sustained because such certificate, which had already been obtained by the respondent before passing of the impugned order, indicated that, the respondent was not a "specified person" within the meaning of Abandoned Properties (Taking Over and Management) Act. The said certificate also furnished prima facie evidence of his citizenship of Pakistan. Therefore, the order passed by the petitioner's Chairman recalling the earlier order passed by the Deputy Administrator, cannot be justified. On any ground. The learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, therefore, appears to have rightly allowed the respondent's petition.
' In the result, the petition is dismissed and leave it refused.