Muhamamd Iqbal vs Secretary, Ministry of Minority Affairs Ss — 2025 MLD 1962 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

Muhamamd Iqbal VS Secretary, Ministry of Minority Affairs Ss. 8, 10 & 17--- Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4, 10-A , 23 & 24---Property as evacuee trust property, declaration of---Property relating to a religious or charitable trust,transferring of---Validation of certain transfer---Scope ---Revision, powers of---Petitioners assailed the order of the cancellation of RL-II No.47 and the declaration of the land-in-question as evacuee trust propertypassed by the Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs and Inter-faith Harmony---Claim of the petitioners is that they are owners /vendee of the property-in-questionon separate Khasra Numbers having been purchased by a lady vendor, while a "Mandir" was constructed on Khasra Numbers different from theirs but they are wrongly considered as tenants by the Secretary /Respondent---Validity---Record reveals that the RL-II No.47 of land-in-question was cancelled by invoking the provisions (relatingdeclaration of property as evacuee trustproperty and validation of transfer) under Ss. 8 & 10 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal ) Act, 1975---But the Respondent (the Secretary), while passing the impugned order did not even touch/discuss the said provisions of Ss. 8 & 10 of the Act 1975, which effected the petitioners' valuable rights---Article 4 of the Constitution provides that it is an inalienable right of every citizen to be treated in accordance with law and no action detrimental to his/her life, liberty, reputation or property shall be taken except as per law---Article 10-A of the Constitution provides right of fair trial and due process for determination of rights and obligations but the impugned order has been passed without adopting due process and proper procedure of law as provided under the Act 1975---Moreover, the petitioners have fundamental right under Art.23 of the Constitution to acquire, hold and dispose of property and Art.24 of the Constitution clearly states that no person shall be deprived of his property except in accordance with law, therefore, the respondents are bound to act strictly in accordance with the Law specifically the Ss. 8, 10 & 17 of the Act 1975, which have not been even discussed properly---Respondent (the Secretary) while passing the impugned order did not properly examine or even discuss the said important provisions of Ss. 8 & 10 of the Act 1975---Said Ss. 8 and 9 are directly relevant to the present case because the petitioners are challenging the cancellation of RL-II No.47 and the declaration of the land as evacuee trust property---As per S.8 of the Act 1975 whenever there is a question about certain property relating to a religious or charitable trust, the matter must be decided by the Chairman Evacuee Trust Properties Board (ETPB), and before declaring any property as evacuee trust property, a notice must be given to the affected parties, which is a legal requirement that anyone having an interest in the property must be given a fair opportunity of hearing--- After said process, the declaration must be published in the official Gazette--- However, in the present case, there is nothing on record to show that such legal steps were followed, nor the petitioners were given any proper opportunity to present their version, which amounts to violation of legal procedure---Similarly, S.10 of the Act 1975,dealing with situations where evacuee trust property is already transferred to someone, stipulates that if the transfer happened in good faith before a certain date and under the relevant law, it will be considered valid If there is a doubt whether a transaction was made honestly, the Chairman has the authority to decide but even,in such cases, it is compulsory to give a fair hearing to the person who may be affected---In the present case, the petitioners claimed ownership of the land through old transactions, starting from 1913 and that they purchased the property from a lawful lady owner---Impugned order does not show that the Chairman or the Secretary (Respondents) considered said facts or heard the petitioners properly---Thus, the matter was decided without following the procedure required by law---Hence, the impugned order had been passed without considering fundamental rights therefore, not sustainable in the eyes of law---High Court set aside the impugned order while remanding the case back to the Respondent(Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs and Interfaith Harmony), who would decide the issue afresh after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and other concerned persons, strictly in accordance with law, especially Ss. 8, 10 & 17 of the Act through a speaking order---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Muhamamd Iqbal vs Secretary, Ministry of Minority Affairs Ss — 2025 MLD 1962 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD