BOARD OF FOREIGN MISSIONS vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB Ere.
The petitioner, the Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church, sought special leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed its writ petition regarding the ownership of a building occupied by a school. The petitioner contended that while it allowed the Provincial Government to use the premises rent-free for school operations, it remained the legal owner of the property. The core legal question is whether a building owned by a third party, rather than the school itself, constitutes 'property attached to the school' under paragraph 5 of Martial Law Regulation No. 118, thereby vesting in the Provincial Government upon the nationalization of the school. The Supreme Court observed that the interpretation of whether privately owned property occupied by a school falls within the scope of property 'attached to' the school under the Regulation presents a substantial question of law with significant implications for numerous cases. Consequently, the Court granted special leave to appeal to provide an authoritative interpretation of the statutory provision and issued notice regarding the petitioner's request for interim relief.
- Does property owned by a third party, which is occupied by a school, constitute 'property attached to the school' under paragraph 5 of Martial Law Regulation No. 118?
- Can property not owned by a privately-managed school vest in the Provincial Government under the provisions of Martial Law Regulation No. 118?
- Paragraph 5, Martial Law Regulation No. 118
ORDER
1. 'ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-The petitioner is a Board of Foreign Missions of Presbyterian Church of the United States of America which has been carrying on missionary work in Pakistan for several years.
2. In the course of the missionary work, it acquired movable and immovable properties which are managed through Managers, at present through the Lahore Church Council of the United Churches in Pakistan, hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the Council.
3. According to the petitioner, since one of the objects of the petitioner, as well as that of the Council, was to promote the cause of education, petitioner did not interfere with the running of the School by the Provincial Government, and allowed the. Government to occupy the premises rent-free, as a licensee ; although rent was being charged from the other tenants of the property.
4. The petitioner challenged the action taken by the respondents before the Lahore High Court, in Writ Petition No. 1236 of 1981 on the ground, inter alia, that the building occupied by the School was the property owned by the petitioner and it cannot be treated as the property "attached to the School" within the meaning of paragraph '5 of the Martial Law Regulation No. 118. The High Court, however, dismissed the Writ Petition by the judgment dated 7th March, 1981, and the petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal.
5. Mr. Shaukat A.I Shaikh, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition submits that the petitioner is the owner of the building and it is partly occupied by the School, and it cannot, by any stretch of argument, be treated as the "property attached to the School" within the meaning of Paragraph 5 of the Martial Law Regulation No. 118. In support of this submission learned counsel referred to certain documents on record, for example, certified copy of the Property Register which shows the petitioner as the owner of the building, and the School as one of its occupiers.
6. If the petitioner is the owner of the building occupied by the School, the question for consideration is whether the building got vested in the Provincial Government by virtue of paragraph 5 of the Martial Law Regulation No. 118 which reads as under "Such privately-managed school as the Central Government, in the case of a school situated in Islamabad Capital Territory, and the Provincial Government in any other case; may, by notification in the official Gazette issued at any time on or after the first day of October 1972, specify in this behalf shall vest in the Central Government or, as the case may be, in the Provincial Government, together with all property attached to it."
7. The point that requires examination is whether the building owned by the petitioner, and not by the School, can be treated as the property attached to the School and be said to have got vested in the Provincial Government by virtue of the provisions of paragraph 5 of the Martial Law Regulation No. 118. This question and other points raised in support of the petition are substantial questions of law, and since these are likely to affect large number of case, an authoritative decision of this Court is necessary. We, therefore, grant special leave to appeal. Security, for costs is fixed at Rs. 2,500.
8. The learned counsel requests for grant of interim relief by the issue of direction to the respondents prohibiting them from raising new construction on the property and maintaining status quo. We would, however, like to hear the Advocate-General Punjab in this behalf. Issue notice to him for 14th June, 1981.