SA151Q MASIH Versus THE CHIEF ADMN., AUOAF

Sadiq Masih son of Piran Ditta, Head Jamadar is permanent employee of the Auqaf Department, Government of the Punjab. At present, he is posted to perform his duties in Badshahi Mosque, Lahore. The petitioner is a Christian by faith. He had a dispute with his Department over the ownership and possession of Property NoA‑2181/1, Badshahi Road, Lahore. Admittedly, the property is situated quite close to the Badshahi Mosque. The property in dispute being evacuee, was transferred by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lahore in favour of the petitioner against price. A P.T.D. was also issued to the petitioner by the Settlement Department on 16‑12‑1979 vide Annexure `B'. The fact of payment of the transfer price by petitioner to Settlement Department and also the issuance of title documents to him was not at all disputed by the respondents. In order to make the matter more sure, Mr. Khalilur Rehman, Deputy Settlement Commissioner was summoned by this Court on 4‑11‑1990 to depose about the validity or otherwise of the P.T.D. of the property issued to the petitioner by the Department. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner stated emphatically that the property was transferred to the petitioner by the Department as an evacuee property and that the title documents in possession of the petitioner were genuine. However, the plea of the Auqaf Department from the very beginning was that the property in dispute was not evacuee and that there was sufficient evidence available on record to demonstrate that the property belonged to the Auqaf Department. It may also be observed here that at one stage, the petitioner was dispossessed from the said property by the Auqaf Department. However, the possession of the house was ordered to be restored to the petitioner by this Court.

2. During the hearing of the case on several dates, I have particularly noted that the administration of Badshahi Mosque did 'not at all want that petitioner should reside in the close vicinity of the mosque being a non‑Muslim citizen. The petitioner is a Christian as already observed above and as such the Khateeb of the Mosque in particular did not desire that a non‑Muslim like the petitioner should live in the neighbourhood of place of worship of the Muslims. Heated arguments were addressed by the learned counsel for the parties on the controversy. The religious feelings from both sides were also involved in the case. In such a situation, it was earnestly desired by the learned counsel that the dispute might be settled amicably between the parties on the basis of give and take: The parties ultimately agreed that the controversy should be resolved through a fair compromise and that the petitioner should sufficiently be compensated specially keeping in view that he was a non‑Muslim citizen and that it was the duty of the State in an Islamic set‑up to look after the welfare of a member of minority community like the petitioner. The petitioner was, therefore, ready and willing to surrender the ownership and possession of his property to the management of Badshahi Mosque provided he was given a plot of 10 marlas and reasonable compensation in lieu thereof. He has also drawn the attention of the Court to an order already passed by the then President o Pakistan on 6‑6‑1981 over the dispute commanding that an alternative accommodation acceptable to the petitioner would be provided to him before he was actually ejected from the property in question vide Annexure `C'. It appears from the order that the directions were sent to the Secretary, Auqa and Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab for compliance. They are under law bound to obey the said order. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the parties including the learned Law Officer that the order of the President was legal and .valid inasmuch as it was protected under the provision of Article 270‑A of the Constitution of 1973. It is thus evident from the order of the Head of the State that the petitioner was entitled to an accommodation of his choice and that he would not be ejected from the property in dispute till such time he was given the alternative accommodation acceptable to him. It appears that the said order was ignored and was not implemented in letter an spirit by the respondents for unknown reasons. In the peculiar circumstances, the order had to be acted upon by the respondents, under the law. It is accordingly held that the order of the President, dated 6‑6‑1981 (Annexure) is operative and still holds the field for all intents and purposes. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be ejected from the property in dispute till such time he is suitably accommodated by giving him some place of his choice. In this view of the matter, effective steps were taken by this Court to compensate the petitioner in terms of order of the President. The Provincial Government also agreed to allot a plot of 5 Marlas to the petitioner in Sabzazar Scheme, Lahore, instead of 10 marlas plot because of policy decision over the controversy. This information was conveyed by Mr. A.R. Arshad Malik, learned Legal Adviser of the Lahore Development Authority that a plot of 5 Marlas shall be allotted to the petitioner. This allotment offer was accepted by the petitioner provided he was given enough compensation thereof for surrending his ownership and possession of his house situated in the very heart of the city. The area of the house of the petitioner measures more than 3 Marla as is established from the P.T.D. Annexure `D'. Needless to observe that the land in the old city is very costly. Maulana Abdul Qadir Azad, Khateeb of Badshahi Mosque has stated in Court that the petitioner may be directed to be given a sum of Rs.50,000 from Baitul Mall, set up by the Government of Pakistan to accommodate and help financially the people like the petitioner. Learned Advocate‑General fully agrees with the proposal made by Maulana Abdul Qadir Azad in this behalf. However, learned counsel for the petitioner adds forcefully that the amount suggested was grossly inadequate and that it would not compensate the petitioner for his ownership and possession over the property in dispute even in terms of the order of the President. He maintains that the house of the petitioner is a very valuable property because of its location in the very centre of the city of Lahore. I am wholly in agreement with him. The petitioner has undoubtedly made a tremendous sacrifice for a noble cause in handing over the property to the Auqaf Department as a gesture of good will to the Muslim community at large. The sacrifice of the petitioner is really admirable and as such it is equally desirable that he should be compensated sufficiently to enable him to live comfortably with the members of his family at his new place.

3. In this view of the matter, in accordance with the order, dated 6‑6,1981 of the President, Annexure `C' direction is issued to the Administrator, Baitul Mall to pay a sum of Rs.1,10,0(X) (Rupees one lac and ten thousand) to the petitioner from the aforesaid fund to enable him to build his house in Sabzazar Scheme, Lahore, on a plot of five Marlas, which shall be allotted to him on or before 25‑3‑1992 without fail. The vacant possession of the plot shall also be handed over to the petitioner by the authorities concerned before the above date. The petitioner in turn shall hand over the vacant possession of the property in question to Auqaf Department on sir before 14‑8‑1992 provided of course all the above‑mentioned conditions are fulfilled before the target date; by the concerned Departments. In order to overcome the possible difficulties in construction of house by the petitioner, the Departments concerned shall sanction water , electricity and gas connections to the petitioner on his applications without any loss of time. Building plan shall also be sanctioned by the Lahore Development Authority within the minimum possible time provided the petitioner pays the: requisite charges.

4. Before parting, I would like to observe that the efforts of the learned counsel for the parties, particularly learned Advocate‑General were indeed laudable for bringing this unfortunate dispute to an amicable settlement acceptable to both the parties. Copies of this order shall be sent by the office to all concerned for compliance. With these observations, this petition is disposed of on the basis of compromise between the parties.

A.A./S‑92/L Order accordingly.