2025 CLC 1875 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2025 CLC 1875 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case CHIEF COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE CORPORATE TAX OFFICE-FBR VS FEDERAL SECRETARY / REVISIONAL AUTHORITY MINISTRY OF ELIGIOUS AFFAIRS AND INTERFAITH HARMONY-ISLAMABAD Ss.2(1), 5(3), 16, 17 & 36---Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act (XII of 1957), S. 3 [since repealed]---Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act (XIII of 1975), Ss.6 & 8---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.4, 8, 23, 25, 173 & 199---Evacuee property---Transfer of evacuee property was approved in 1951 by the [then]Evacuee Property Department [predecessor of Evacuee Trust Property Board, (ETPB)]---Subsequent declaration of property as 'evacuee trust property' in 1998 by Chairman ETPB by cancelling prior transfer which was approved in 1951---Legality---Approval of transfer by Additional Custodian---Jurisdiction and validity---Powers enjoyed by the [then] Custodian/Additional Custodian in matters pertaining to evacuee properties stated---Transfers approved by the Custodian/Additional Custodian prior to promulgation of Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975---Validity and scope---Facts in brevity were that the property in dispute known as 'Guru Mandar Building' was originally held by the Guru Mandir Association (GMA), which sold it in 1948 through its authorized agent to a private entity known as Fredrick Sidney Cotton (FSC)---The sale was duly approved by Additional Custodian followed by a registered sale deed in 1951---In 1961 the Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Finance purchased the building from FSC and handed it over to the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), which had since continuously occupied it as its headquarters---In 1998, the Chairman ETPB declared the building in question as evacuee trust property and ordered its takeover from FBR---Such decision was also affirmed by the revisional authority, prompting the institution of the present petition by the petitioner (FBR)---The cardinal question arose for determination before the High Court was as to "Whether the initial transfer of the building in question i.e. Guru Mandar Building by GMA through its authorized agent to FSC was lawful and valid under the applicable evacuee property laws, thereby validating all subsequent transactions, or whether same was invalid so as to render the petitioner's claimed title and possession untenable?"---Held: The [then] law de jure governing evacuee property was the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance, 1949, under S. 16 of which approval of transfer was sought which was rightly sanctioned by the D.C. (Judicial) Evacuee Property in 1951---GMA through its authorized agent and FSC followed the due process provided under 1949 Ordinance---The approval of transfer of building in question issued by the Additional Custodian in 1961 was rightly done and was in accordance with law---With regards to the challenge as to the jurisdiction of Additional Custodian approving the initial transfer in question it was accentuated that as per the definition of the term 'Custodian' provided under S. 2(1) of the 1949 Ordinance the term 'custodian' included both Additional/Deputy Custodian as well---Moreover, in presence of plethora of case law showing Additional/Deputy Custodians having approved transfers of evacuee properties under the 1949 Ordinance, therefore, by undoing such prior transfers of evacuee properties citing lack of authority of Additional/Deputy Custodian in approving the transfers would unduly upset a plethora of settled transactions---Moreover, S. 36 of the 1949 Ordinance empowered Additional/Deputy or Assistant Custodians to pass various orders under the 1949 Ordinance---Sections 16 and 17 of the 1949 Ordinance clearly show that the 'Custodian' (which term to include "Additional / Deputy / Assistant Custodian") had ample powers under the 1949 Ordinance, to facilitate transfer of evacuee properties---As per the documents on record, the prescribed process was duly followed which was never challenged at such time, therefore, the process undertaken had attained finality---Section 15 of the 1949 Ordinance also fortified the powers enjoyed by office of the Custodian relating to evacuee property which provided a prohibition on transfer of evacuee property, except with the approval of the Custodian---This further clarified that the Custodian had ample power under law to transfer the building in question at such time---The Custodian (including his officers) held the power to permit and facilitate transfer of evacuee property, including the building in question and in that regard no violation of law or process had been shown, therefore, the building in question was properly and lawfully transferred from GMA through its agent to FSC---Moreover, with respect to the order declaring the building in question as evacuee trust property, the Chairman ETPB under S. 8 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 did not take into account imperative aspects prior to such declaration i.e. any authentic documentation such as trust deed, registration certificate, etc. before the building was unilaterally declared as trust property

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC