1. ' SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.---There does not appear to be much dispute of facts. Admittedly, a plot of land was leased out to Messrs Hina Housing Project (Pvt.) Limited by the Karachi Development Authority for establishing a shopping centre. The lessee transferred 150 shops to the respondent No,2 and the construction raised was not in conformity with the building plan approved by the respondent No, 1 . The petitioner felt aggrieved by the aforesaid construction and moved this Court for redress. It appears that the respondent No,1 had also addressed a Notice to the respondent No,2 under section 185 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") requiring them to remove encroachment. Nevertheless, the respondent No,2 approached the respondent No,1 for composition and upon payment of Composition Fee the respondent No,1 stopped proceeding further in terms of the 1st proviso to section 185(1) of the Act. In the comments on behalf of the respondent No,1, it is contended that the Cantonment Board is competent to impose penalty for illegal construction and, therefore, the petitioner's contention that the building continues to remain illegal is without force.
2. ' We have noticed that 1st proviso to section 185(1) of the Act, empowers the Board, instead of alteration or demolition of any building, to accept by way of composition such sum as it thinks reasonable. This power is, prima facie, not even hedged by any rules/regulations. Nevertheless, a very important limitation on the exercise of such power is laid down by 2nd proviso to section 185(1) of the Act, which reads as follows:-- "Provided further that the Board shall not, without the previous concurrence of the competent Authority accept any sum by way of composition under the foregoing proviso in request of any building on land which is not under the management of the Board."
3. ' It is apparent that the Board is competent to compound any illegality in the construction only when a building is under the management of the Board, otherwise, composition cannot be effected without the previous concurrence of the Competent Authority as defined in section 2(viii) of the Act.
4. Admittedly, no such concurrence was obtained.
5. ' Mr. Abdul Saeed Khan Ghori, learned counsel for respondent No,1 argued that the building in question was under the management of the Board inasmuch as all municipal facilities were provided by the Board. We regret we find such contention entirely untenable. By that token every building in a cantonment area could be said to be under the management of the Board. The 2nd proviso to section 185(1) of the Act, however, makes a clear distinction by way of a building under the management of the Board and those which are not so inasmuch as only in the latter types of cases concurrence of the Competent Authority is required.
6. ' Mr. Nadeem Azhar Siddiqui, learned Deputy Attorney-General, appearing on Court Notice, supported the above contention though on different grounds. He relied upon section 108(a) of the Act, which reads as follows:-- "108. Property.----Subject to any special reservation made by the Central Government, all property of the nature hereinafter in this section specified which as been acquired or provided or is maintained by a Board shall vest in and belong to that Board, and shall be under its direction, management and control, that is to say,--
(a) all markets; slaughter-houses, manure and nights depots, and buildings of every description; ' Indeed, the above provision stipulates that subject to any special reservation, properties of certain types, which have been acquired or provided or maintained by a Board, shall vest in and belong to the Board and shall be under its direction, management and control. Markets and slaughterhouses, etc., are covered by clause (a) to the aforesaid section. Nevertheless, a plain reading of the statutory provision shows that section 108 would be attracted only when the property has been acquired or is maintained by a Board. There is nothing to show that the shops in question were ever acquired by the Board. Indeed, learned counsel attempted to argue that the management by the Board could be inferred from the fact that municipal facilities were provided by the Board. We are, however, unable to subscribe to such a broad proposition inasmuch as by that token the 2nd proviso to section 185(1) of the Act would become entirely meaningless and redundancy cannot be attributed to the Legislature.
7. ' For the aforesaid reasons, since we are of the view that the property in question was not under the management of the Board and concurrence of the Competent Authority was required before composition could be effected. In the circumstances, we would hold such composition to be without lawful authority and direct the respondent No,1 to perform its duty in accordance with law.
8. ' The petition alongwith the pending interlocutory applications is disposed of in the above terms.