GHULAM RASUL vs JAVAID SAYYED AND Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the rejection of the petitioner's application for the transfer of Evacuee Trust Property No. S-38-R-201, Lahore. The petitioner challenged the administrative decision on the grounds that the Federal Government, having received his initial application, could not delegate its authority to the Evacuee Trust Property Board, and that the subsequent disposal of the property by the Board's authorities was legally invalid. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Evacuee Trust Property Board is statutorily empowered to manage and dispose of evacuee trust property under the direction of the Federal Government. The Court further held that the petitioner, having actively participated in the proceedings before the Board's authorities without objection, was estopped from subsequently challenging their jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that where a party submits to the jurisdiction of a statutory body and participates in its proceedings, they cannot later challenge the validity of that body's authority, particularly when the body acts within its statutory mandate.
- Can a party who participates in proceedings before the Evacuee Trust Property Board later challenge the jurisdiction of that body?
- Does the Evacuee Trust Property Board have the authority to manage and dispose of evacuee trust property under the direction of the Federal Government?
- Is a petitioner estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of an administrative authority after having submitted to its proceedings?
- Section 4(2)(d), Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Ordinance 1974
ORDER
M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his plea for transfer in his favour of Property No. S-38-R-201, Lahore. He had first applied for the transfer before the Federal Minister incharge of Evacuee Trust Property Board, on 6-11-1976, on which a report had been called for, but as the report was not being submitted, he had come to the High Court in successive writ petitions but without any tangible result. He, thereupon, applied to the Federal Government for transfer of the property. The Government directed that the case be decided by the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board, but the latter instead of deciding the matter himself remanded the same to the Deputy Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property, who after hearing the parties, including the petitioner, rejected his case for transfer and ordered him to vacate the premises. His appeal before the Administrator failed for the reason that the property had already, been allotted to Javaid Sayyed respondent and that the petitioner had manoeuvred to occupy the premises forcibly in flagrant violation of law. In the writ petition which the petitioner filed, he challenged the validity of the order of the Administrator on the ground that his application having been presented to the Federal Government, the matter could not have been disposed of by the Administrator, nor could the Federal Government delegate its power under the law to the Evacuee Trust Property Board. The contentions were repelled by the learned Judge of the High Court f, r the reason that the petitioner having participated in the proceedings before the Deputy Chairman and Chairman, he was estopped from question--ing their jurisdiction and that even otherwise the property not being avail--able, the question of its transfer in his favour did not arise.
2. Learned counsel has reiterated before us the same objection to jurisdiction of the Deputy Administrator and the Administrator to have Dealt with the matter. The Evacuee Trust Property Board was responsible or the general supervision and control of all evacuee trust property subject any direction that may be given by the Federal Government and for king such action as it deemed fit for the proper management, maintenance and disposal of such property in accordance with the provisions of the Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Ordinance (XVI 1974). Under section 4(2)(d) of the Ordinance, to which reference was Lade by learned counsel, the Board was empowered, with the prior approval of the Federal Government, to sell, dispose of, transfer or make an endowment or otherwise manage evacuee trust property. It was under direction the Federal Government that the matter had been dealt with by the Chairman ofthe Board. The petitioner had joined the proceedings there. He could not, therefore, challenge the jurisdiction of the Board authorities. No exception can, thus be taken to the decision of the High Court.
3. The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed.
M. Z. M.