PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Versus CHRISTIAN EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENT TRUST, LAHORE

ORDER

1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J .‑‑This is a petition seeking review of this Court's judgment dated 13‑5‑1987 passed in Civil Appeal No.713 of 1984.

2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that this Court while declaring the impugned memorandum dated 20‑6‑1981 to be of no legal effect overlooked the fact that the decision conveyed through the impugned memorandum (dated 20‑6‑1981) related to two parcels of the land i.e. 976 kanals 13 marlas and 38 sq. ft. which stood in the Revenue records in the name of the Board of Foreign Missions and 335 kanals 12 marlas and 167 sq. ft. which stood in the Revenue records in the name of the Christian Educational Endowment Trust, Lahore (the respondent herein) and the memorandum in question did not relate to the latter piece of land alone. According to the learned Advocate‑General, Punjab, the result of this Court's judgment is that not only had the transfer of the land standing in the name of the respondent‑Trust i.e. 335 kanals 12 marlas and 167 sq. ft. in favour of the Government F.C, College been declared to be of no; legal effect but also the mutations pertaining to the land measuring 976 kanals 13 marlas and 38 sq. ft. standing in the name of the Board of Foreign Missions in the Revenue record; although the validity of the above‑mentioned mutations was the subject‑matter of the litigation before a learned Civil Judge at Lahore and before the High Court.

3. The grievance made, if it was correct would indeed be a matter calling for correction but unfortunately it is based on an entire misconception of this Court's judgment.

4. A careful perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the Court was fully conscious of the differing status of the two pieces of the land and it has observed in its judgment that by the impugned memorandum dated 20‑6‑1981, 335 kanals 12 marlas and 167 sq. ft., inter alia, which was owned by the Christian Educational Endowment Trust, has been ordered to be transferred in the name of the Government F.C. College, Lahore, in compliance with the decision taken in the meeting presided over by the Governor of the Punjab. The following passage from the impugned judgment (appearing at page 28 of the paper book) may usefully be referred to here: "in support of this appeal it was submitted that the appellant was aggrieved by the order dated 20‑6‑1981 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore, whereby the properties standing in the names of Board of Foreign Missions and Christian Educational Endowment Trust were ordered to be transferred in the name of the Government F.C. College, Lahore. According to this order, an area of 335` kanals 12 marlas 167 sq. ft. was stated to be owned by the Christian Educational Endowment Trust alongwith the exempted plots in lieu of the acquisition of land by the Lahore Improvement Trust. As such, the dismissal of the writ petition on the plea that the appellant sought a declaration of title from the High Court was totally ? misconceived and it was a clear case of misreading of the ? impugned order and the public record. It was further submitted that by virtue of the deed of declaration of the Trust, namely, the Christian Educational Trust, Lahore (Pakistan) dated 22‑5‑1969 and the subsequent entries made in the Revenue .record, the disputed lands were owned as Trust property by the appellant‑Trust. This property was not at all attached to the Forman Christian College, Lahore ?? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The submission being that the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction whatsoever to divest the appellant‑Trust i.e. Christian Educational Endowment Trust of its proprietary rights and as such his order was totally without jurisdiction.

5. While dealing with this contention, the Court observed as follows: ‑

6. "The crucial questions arising in this case are whether the property claimed to have been dedicated as a Trust in favour of the appellant‑Trust was indeed validly created as Trust property and if so whether it was attached to the F.C. College and vested in the Provincial Government on the take over of the said College, under Martial Law Regulation No.118.

7. Under the Trusts Act 1882, the trustee of the Trust property is, in fact, the legal owner thereof and the property vests in him as such. Hence if a valid Trust had indeed come into being under the Deeds of Trust, the said property became vested in another owner and could not be deemed to form part of the F . C . College and considered as attached to it while taking over the F.C. College under M.L.R. No.118.

8. Now it is an undisputed fact that the land in dispute is shown as Trust property and owned by the appellant, in the Revenue records. The position taken up by the respondents before us is that the creation of the so‑called Trust was a hoax and, in fact, the property in dispute was always attached to the F.C. College and continued to be so attached even ,'after the creation of the alleged Trust.

9. It is, however, established law that any action which may effect the person or property or other right of any party concerned in a dispute can only be taken after giving the person to be affected thereby a reasonable opportunity of showing cause.

10. The conclusion was expressed as follows‑‑ ",

11. "In the present case too the question whether the land standing in the name of the Christian Educational Endowment Trust was or was not a Trust property could not be decided without affording an opportunity to the appellant to be heard. It was only if the property in question was not a Trust property that it could be held that this property was attached to the Government F.C. College and, therefore, vested in the said institution on the enforcement of Martial Law Regulation No.118. The proprietary rights of the appellant were affected by the decision on this question and before any adverse decision could be taken against the appellant it was necessary under the law, as guaranteed under the principles of audi alteram partem, to give the appellant an opportunity of hearing, which was admittedly not granted. Hence, the order dated 20‑6‑1981 was clearly violative of the principles of natural justice and a nullity in law. The decision conveyed by respondent No.1. vide impugned memo dated 20‑6‑1981. is, therefore, declared to be contrary to law and of no legal effect ,"

12. A fair and proper reading of the impugned judgment, the pertinent parts whereof have been reproduced above, clearly reveal that this Court has declared only that part of the impugned memorandum (dated 20‑6‑1981) whereby the area of 335 kanals 12 marlas and 167' sq. ft., which was owned by the Christian Educational Endowment, Trust and was transferred in the name of the Government F.C. College to be against law and nothing has been said in the judgment with regard to the area of 976 kanals 13 marlas and 38 sq. ft. owned by the Board of Foreign Missions which has been transferred in the name of the Government F.C. College, Lahore. Thus, the suits filed in respect of that area are not at all affected by this Court's impugned judgment, as this Court's judgment has not dealt with or was concerned with it.

13. Since this review petition rests on a misreading of the‑judgment the reason for desiring its review is, accordingly, misconceived.

14. Dismissed.

15. M . Y . H . /P‑43/S ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Review dismissed.