Summary: (On appeal against the Order dated 08.12.2022 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Constitution Petition No. D-1031 of 2021). Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act (XIII of 1975)--- ----Ss. 14, 16, 17 & 21---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4 & 10-A---Evacuee Trust property---Declaration---Remedy against---Due process of law and fair trial---Principle of natural justice---Applicability---Lease notification, cancellation of---Petitioner was aggrieved of notice issued by authorities regarding cancellation of lease---Validity---Due process is a pre-requisite that needs to be respected at all strata---Right to fair hearing and fair trial necessitates that no one should be penalized by decision upsetting and afflicting his right or legitimate expectations unless he is given a fair chance to answer it and a fair opportunity to explicate / present the case---To enjoy protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is an inalienable right of every citizen---Purposefulness of Article 4 of the Constitution is to ascribe and integrate doctrine of equality before law or equal protection of law and no action detrimental to life and liberty of any person can be taken without due process of law---Principles of natural justice require that the delinquent should be afforded a fair opportunity to converge, explain and contest before he is found guilty and condemned---Principles of natural justice and fair-mindedness are grounded in philosophy of affording a right of audience before any detrimental action is taken---In the Constitution, right to fair trial has also become a fundamental right under Article 10-A of the Constitution---Principle of natural justice is grounded in astuteness and clear-sightedness of affording a right of audience before any prejudicial action is taken---This is an inescapable obligation of all judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authorities to ensure justice according to sagacity of law---Supreme Court set aside orders passed by High Court and Chairman Evacuee Trust Properties Board and remanded the matter to the Chairman Evacuee Trust Properties Board to decide the matter afresh after providing ample opportunity of hearing to parties---Appeal was allowed. Junaid Wazir v. Superintendent of Police 2024 SCMR 181; Federation of Pakistan v. Zahid Malik 2023 SCMR 603; Usman Ghani v. The Chief Post Master, GPO Karachi 2022 SCMR 745; Capital Development Authority v. Shabir Hussain 2022 SCMR 627; Raja Muhammad Shahid v. The Inspector General of Police 2023 SCMR 1135; Muhammad Yaseen v. Province of Sindh 2024 PLC(C.S.) 111; Government of Balochistan v. Ghulam Rasool 2024 SCMR 1155 and Inspector General of Police, Quetta v. Fida Muhammad 2022 SCMR 1583 rel. Syed Ehsan Raza, Advocate Supreme Court and Ghulam Rasool Mangi, Advocate-on-Record with Petitioner No. 2 (Baber Jan) for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent No. 1. Iftikhar Javed Qazi, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Iqbal Chaudhry Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 2 to 5. Date of hearing: 2nd June, 2025.

Summary: (a) Evacuee Trust Property (Management & Disposal) Act, 1975 — Ss. 14, 17, 21 & 23 — Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-A — Cancellation of lease — Registered 99-year lease — Fraud allegation — Fair trial — Jurisdictional error Lease cancelled without due process — Authority acted without evidence or proper hearing — Jurisdictional overreach — Violation of fair trial rights — Petitioners acquired evacuee trust property through public auction in 1974; lease registered for 99 years in 1992 — ETPB issued notice dated 17.09.2020 alleging fraud and forgery in lease approval — Petitioners challenged cancellation in High Court, which dismissed petition on ground of alternate remedy under S.17 of ETP Act — Supreme Court held that cancellation order dated 14.09.2020 passed by Chairman ETPB was issued without affording proper opportunity of hearing, no evidence was recorded, and adjournment requests due to medical reasons were arbitrarily denied — Court ruled that such serious matters must not be decided summarily without trial — Chairman ETPB did not exercise appellate or revisional jurisdiction under Ss.16 & 17, and acted under Clause 23 of the 1977 Scheme — Nevertheless, power under Clause 23 requires “reasonable opportunity of being heard” — Held, violation of natural justice and Art.10-A occurred. Cited Cases: Junaid Wazir v. SP (2024 SCMR 181) Federation v. Zahid Malik (2023 SCMR 603) Usman Ghani v. GPO Karachi (2022 SCMR 745) Muhammad Yaseen v. Province of Sindh (2024 PLC(CS) 111) Govt. of Balochistan v. Ghulam Rasool (2024 SCMR 1155) (b) Evacuee Trust Property Act, 1975 — Ss. 14, 21 — Exclusion of civil court jurisdiction — Scope and limitations — Special jurisdiction under statute Bar on civil court jurisdiction does not imply unbridled powers — Procedural safeguards and due process mandatory — Court reiterated that exclusion of civil court jurisdiction under S.14 imposes greater responsibility on statutory forums to act judicially — Power under S.21 confers civil court-like powers to ETPB officials for conducting enquiries, recording evidence, and deciding disputes — Any deviation from procedural fairness undermines justice — In the instant case, Chairman ETPB failed to fix date for decision, kept order in limbo, and denied proper hearing, thus violating settled principles of quasi-judicial decision-making. (c) Contract Act, 1872 — Ss. 13, 14 — Lease — Void agreement — Consent and fraud Lease cannot be cancelled for fraud without affording full opportunity to rebut — Allegation of forged approval must be judicially established — Petitioners claimed valid lease under due process; ETPB alleged fake approval for 99-year term — Court held that cancellation of lease requires strict proof of fraud, proper enquiry, and fair opportunity — Summary decision based solely on document verification, without confrontation or trial, was invalid — Chairman ETPB exceeded lawful authority. Final Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed. Impugned High Court judgment dated 08.12.2022, cancellation order dated 14.09.2020, and notice dated 17.09.2020 set aside. Matter remanded to Chairman ETPB for fresh decision after full hearing within 3 months.

Summary: (a) Contract Law – Auction of Evacuee Trust Property – No Vested Right Without Approval — Terms of auction – Clauses 4 and 8 – Right to match the highest bid – Cancellation of auction – Effect – Appellants participated in an auction conducted by the Evacuee Trust Property Board (ETPB) for land measuring 49 kanals and 11 marlas, where they exercised their right to match the highest bid of Rs.79,000/- per kanal – However, under clause 4 of the auction terms, the approval of the competent authority was necessary for the bid to be finalized – Clause 8 vested the ETPB with the right to cancel the auction without assigning any reason – Chairman, ETPB, canceled the auction before approving the appellants’ matched bid and ordered re-auction – Held, a bid at an auction, even if the highest, does not create any vested right in favor of the bidder unless confirmed by the competent authority – The appellants’ option to match the highest bid merely placed them in the position of the highest bidder, and without confirmation, they had no claim of ownership over the suit land – Courts cannot re-write auction terms, and in the absence of approval, no legal right accrues in favor of the appellants. Cited Cases: Javed Iqbal Abbasi & Company v. Province of Punjab (1996 SCMR 1433) – Principles of natural justice not violated where a re-auction is ordered. Captain-PQ Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. A.W. Brothers (2004 SCMR 1956) – Mere participation in an auction, even as the highest bidder, does not create a legal right. Afzal Maqsood Butt v. Banking Court No.2, Lahore (PLD 2005 SC 470) – An auction bid is only an offer; without confirmation, no rights in the property are vested.

Summary: (a) Evacuee Property Law--- ----Allotment of evacuee land---Challenge to allotment and proprietary rights---Scope of interference---Petitioners claimed entitlement to evacuee land as local destitutes and sought annulment of the allotment and PRTO issued in favour of private respondents---Record revealed that land in dispute, comprising Khasra Nos. 141 and 144, had been allotted to respondents’ predecessor-in-interest as migrants in 1982, and proprietary rights were conferred upon them through Order No.13611 dated 23-09-1999---Earlier litigation before District Rehabilitation Court and revisional forums had upheld the validity of the allotment---Petitioners neither challenged the allotment within the prescribed time nor explained the extraordinary delay of nearly two decades in filing review petition before the Custodian---Held, that the challenge being hopelessly time-barred and unsupported by any plausible justification, was rightly dismissed by the Custodian and affirmed by the High Court. (b) Evacuee Property Act--- ----Claim of local destitutes---Burden of proof and contradictions in pleadings---Petitioners’ claim of being local destitutes contradicted by their own averments that they had constructed houses worth crores of rupees on the disputed land---Such contradictory stance rendered their plea devoid of credibility---They also failed to establish their status as migrants or local destitutes through any documentary evidence---Held, that findings of the forums below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not warrant interference. (c) Civil Procedure--- ----Concurrent findings of fact---Interference by Supreme Court---Scope---Where concurrent findings of Custodian and High Court are based on proper appraisal of evidence and no question of law of public importance arises, Supreme Court ordinarily does not interfere---Held, that no error of law, jurisdictional defect, or misreading of evidence was demonstrated---Petition for leave to appeal dismissed. Disposition: ---Petition for leave to appeal dismissed. ---Concurrent findings of fact maintained.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, challenged the judgments of the Civil Judge and Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, which dismissed his suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding ownership of land measuring 04-Kanal 11-Marla. The petitioner claimed ownership through a registered sale deed from 1975, but the respondent (Province of Punjab) had canceled earlier mutations based on fraudulent claims of Faiz Muhammad, who had initially been allotted the land. The petitioner argued that the sale deed in his favor was valid and could not be canceled, especially after the repeal of the Evacuee Laws in 1975. -----Issues: 1- Whether the mutation in favor of Faiz Muhammad, from whom the petitioner derived his title, was valid or fraudulent. 2- Whether the Provincial Government had the authority to cancel the allotment and mutations made by the Central Government. 3- Whether the petitioner’s claim could be upheld after the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. 4- Whether the courts below erred in dismissing the petitioner’s suit for declaration. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the original allotment to Faiz Muhammad was fraudulent, and the subsequent transactions based on that allotment were also void. Fraud vitiates even the most solemn proceedings, and any rights derived from fraudulent transactions are automatically invalid. The court emphasized that fraudulent transactions are subject to review and cancellation, even after the repeal of the Evacuee Laws in 1975. The court found that under Section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, the Chief Settlement Commissioner had the authority to investigate fraudulent allotments and cancel such allotments if necessary. The fact that Faiz Muhammad’s allotment was fraudulent meant that the Provincial Government acted within its authority to cancel it. The petitioner’s claim that the transaction could not be reopened after the repeal of the Evacuee Laws was rejected. The court ruled that fraud does not fall under the protection of being a past and closed transaction, and fraudulent allotments can be reopened and investigated even after the repeal of the relevant laws. The court concluded that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that the original allotment to Faiz Muhammad was genuine. As a result, the petitioner’s claim to the land, based on subsequent transactions from Faiz Muhammad, could not be upheld. The court found no illegality or error in the decisions of the lower courts. The revision petition was dismissed, and the concurrent judgments of the Civil Judge and Additional District Judge were upheld. -----Citations/Precedents: Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (PLD 1973 SC 236) Talib Hussain v. Member, Board of Revenue (2003 SCMR 549) Khawaja Bashir Ahmad v. The Additional Settlement Commissioner (1991 SCMR 1604) Messrs Beach Luxury Hotels, Karachi v. Messrs Anas Muneer Ltd. (2016 SCMR 222) Sheikh Rauf Ahmad v. Dr. Nazir Saeed (2020 YLR Note 52)

Summary: Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act (XIII of 1975)--- ----Ss.8 & 10---Cancellation of allotment in reference proceedings declaring the land to be evacuee property---Non-impleadment of petitioners in the proceedings---Effect---Non-fulfillment of requirements as envisaged in S.10(1) of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975---Effect---Absence of procedural compliance and non-determination as to bona fides qua allotment---Effect---Revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed being barred by time having knowledge on account of issuance of notices---Contention of the petitioners was that they had been condemned unheard---Validity---Respondent-Board admitted that petitioners were not made party to the reference filed before the Chairman of the Board, therefore, attributing knowledge to the petitioners through issuance of notices was beyond comprehension and this fact alone militated against the findings recorded by respondent in the order that the revision filed by the petitioners was barred by limitation---No determination was made in the orders that the allotment of land in favour of original allottee was lacking in bona fide and the process requirements for holding of the inquiry by the Chairman of the Board as envisaged in S.10(1) of the Act were also not met with---Constitutional petitions were allowed and orders were set aside with the direction that the matter shall be deemed to be pending before the Chairman of the Board, who shall decide the same afresh in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. Syed Salman Haider Jaffari for Petitioners (in Writ Petition No. 7411 of 2023). Mian Muhammad Aslam Pervaiz for Petitioner (in Writ Petition No. 41334 of 2022). Nemo for Petitioner (in Writ Petition No. 21099 of 2022). Mian Abdul Sattar Ijaz for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3/ETPB. Sheraz Zaka, Assistant Attorney General for the State. Order Shams Mehmood Mirza, J.--- This order shall decide the present writ petition as well as connected Writ Petitions No.41334 of 2022 and No.21099 of 2022 on account of similarity of facts and the order that is under challenge in all the petitions. 2. For the purposes of this order only the facts of the present case shall be stated. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the land in question measuring 43 Kanal 10 Marla situated in Chak Shumali Tehsil and District Jhang was originally allotted to one Bismillah Begum through RL-II dated 03.07.1961 by the Settlement Department. The petitioners are subsequent purchasers of the said property through registered sale deeds executed in the year 1993. The Deputy Administrator Evacuee Trust, Jhang filed a reference under sections 8 and 10 of the Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 (the Act) for declaring the land in question as evacuee trust property and for cancellation of RL-II No.18 dated 03.07.1961. The Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board (the Board) through order dated 04.06.2005 cancelled the allotment in favour of Bismillah Begum by declaring the land in question to be evacuee property. The petitioners acquired knowledge of the proceedings when notice dated 28.11.2018 was served on them by Deputy/Assistant Administrator, Jhang for their eviction. The petitioners soon thereafter filed a revision before the Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs and Interfaith Harmony/respondent No.2 which dismissed on 10.06.2020. was 4. Learned counsel submit that the petitioners were not made a party in the reference filed before the Chairman of the Board and as such they were condemned unheard. It is stated that respondent No.2 declared the revision to be barred by limitation and also did not take into account section 10 of the Act. Learned counsel for the Board, on the other hand, supported the order passed by respondent No.2. 5. Argument heard, record perused. 6. Respondent No.2 in the impugned order clearly held that the petitioner had notice of the proceedings of the reference initiated before the Chairman of the Board and thus their revision was barred by limitation. In this regard, it was stated in the impugned order that "....several notices were issued to the all concerned which prima facie establishes the awareness/knowledge of the petitioners about the proceedings...". Learned counsel for the Board admitted that the petitioners were not made party to the reference filed before the Chairman of the Board. That being the case, attributing knowledge to the petitioners through issuance of notices is beyond comprehension. This fact alone militates against the findings recorded by respondent No.2 in the impugned order that the revision filed by the petitioners was barred by limitation. 7. Section 10 of the Act in so far it is relevant reads as under: 10. Validation of certain transfers.--(1) An immovable evacuee trust property.-- (a) if situated in a rural area and utilised bona fide under any Act prior to June 1964, for allotment against the satisfaction of verified claims; and (b) ?.. shall be deemed to have been validly transferred by sale to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, and the sale proceeds thereof shall be re-imbursed to the Board and shall form part of the Trust Pool. (2) If a question arises whether a transaction referred to in subsection (1) is bona fide or not, it shall be decided by the Chairman whose decision shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court. 8. The import of section 10 (1) of the Act is clear that any bona fide allotment of evacuee property situated in rural area prior to June 1968 against satisfaction of the verified claims shall be deemed as a valid transfer and in such eventuality the only remedy available to the Board is to claim the sale proceeds from the Chief Settlement Commissioner. 9. The provisions contained in section 10(1) of the Act require the Chairman of the Board to investigate in the first place whether the property is in fact an evacuee property or not. Having crossed this threshold, the Chairman is then required to inquire into the bona fides of the transaction for allotment of evacuee property against duly verified claims. This stage of inquiry necessitates recording of evidence of the Settlement Department or at least a statement on oath by any of its officials. The persons in whose favour the allotment was made by the Settlement Department or their successors, as the case may be, are mandatorily required to be heard by the Chairman of the Board. It is only after the completion of all these stages of the inquiry that the Chairman of the Board can make a determination that the transaction of allotment of evacuee property lacked bona fide or otherwise. If an order is made to the effect that allotment was bona fide it shall constitute transfer by sale of the evacuee property in favour of the Settlement Department thereby entitling the Board to receive the sale proceeds from the Settlement Department. 10. In the present case, neither the Chairman of the Board nor respondent No.2 in their impugned orders made any determination that the allotment of land in favour of Bismillah Begum was lacking in bona fide. Similarly, the process requirements for holding of the inquiry by the Chairman of the Board were also not met with. The orders passed by the Chairman of the Board and respondent No.2 do not meet the requirements imposed by section 10 (1) of the Act. 11. In this view of the matter, orders dated 04.06.2005 and 10.06.2020 passed by the Chairman of the Board and respondent No.2 respectively are not sustainable in the law and facts of the case. This writ petition is accordingly allowed and orders dated 04.06.2005 and 10.06.2020 are set aside with the result that the matter shall be deemed to be pending before the Chairman of the Board who shall decide the same afresh in accordance with law after granting hearing to the petitioners and the Settlement Department. The connected writ petitions are also allowed. SA/M-82/L Petitions allowed.

Summary: ---Issues:Whether the limitation period for the redemption of property should be computed from the acknowledgment of the right of redemption.Whether the petitioners' suit was barred by the limitation period prescribed under the law.----Holding/Reasoning/O

Summary: Background: The dispute centered around the interpretation and application of Clause 3 of the Scheme for the Management and Disposal of Urban Evacuee Trust Properties, 1977, particularly regarding the change of tenancy after a tenant's demise and the entitlement of legal heirs. -----Issues: 1- Whether the Petitioner, as a brother and alleged co-sharer in business with the deceased tenant, is entitled to tenancy rights under Clause 3(III)(B)(b) of the Scheme.The legality and reasonableness of the orders passed by the Evacuee Trust Property Board (ETPB) officials, favoring the Respondent No.5 (the widow of the deceased tenant) for tenancy rights. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Court, led by Justice Jawad Hassan, held that the impugned orders failed to properly address the legal heirship issue and the Petitioner's entitlement as a co-sharer in business with the deceased. The Court emphasized that the rights of the parties under the Scheme should be determined in accordance with its provisions. The Court found that the Respondents did not follow the due procedure in determining the legal heirs of the deceased tenant and transferred the tenancy rights solely to the Respondent No.5 without considering the Petitioner's claims. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the Respondent No.3 for fresh decision-making in line with the Scheme, ensuring that all necessary parties are heard and relevant documents considered. ------Citations/Precedents: SERVICE GLOBAL FOOT WEAR LIMITED versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others (PLD 2023 Lahore 471)Messrs Tri-Star Industries (Pvt.) Limited Vs. TRISA BURSTENFABRIK AG TRIENGEN and another (2023 SCMR 1502)FAIZ ULLAH and others versus DILAWAR HUSSAIN and others (2022 SCMR 1647)Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary and others Vs. Muhammad Khurshid (2021 SCMR 369)

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Art. 199—Evacuee Trust Property Board—Lease of evacuee trust property—Authority of Minister—Jurisdiction of Wafaqi Mohtasib—Validity of orders—Cancellation of lease—Public interest. The petitioner challenged the orders of the Wafaqi Mohtasib and subsequent directions regarding the lease of evacuee trust property to Respondent No.1. The Court held that under the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 and the Scheme for the Management and Disposal of Urban Evacuee Trust Properties, 1977, no provision empowered a Minister to make recommendations for the lease of evacuee property. Any recommendation made by a Minister for allotment or lease of public property without following due legal procedure was held void ab initio and illegal. Further, the Wafaqi Mohtasib lacked jurisdiction under Article 9 of the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983 to direct compliance with an unlawful recommendation. -----Cited Cases: Ch. Munir Ahmad v. Government of Punjab (PLD 2022 Lahore 384) Province of Punjab v. District Bar Association, Khanewal (2014 SCMR 1611) American International School System v. Mian Muhammad Ramzan (2015 SCMR 1449) Raja Ali Zaman (decd.) v. Evacuee Trust Property Board (PLD 2022 SC 726) Khuda Bakhsh v. Khushi Muhammad (PLD 1976 SC 208) (b) Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975: ----S. 30—Lease of public property—Procedure—Public auction—Recommendations by unauthorized authority—Legality. The lease of an evacuee trust property must be conducted strictly in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 and the 1977 Scheme, which mandate public auction or tender for allotment. Any lease granted on the mere recommendation of a Minister, bypassing statutory procedures, is void and unenforceable. The Court held that public property cannot be alienated arbitrarily or on discretionary recommendations without adhering to the statutory requirements. ----Cited Cases: Rehmatullah v. Saleh Khan (2007 SCMR 729) Hameedullah v. Headmistress, Government Girls School Chokara (1997 SCMR 855) Maulana Abdul Haque Baloch v. Government of Balochistan (PLD 2013 SC 641) (c) Administrative Law: ----Wafaqi Mohtasib—Jurisdiction—Direction to comply with Minister's recommendation—Scope of powers under Article 9 of the Ombudsman Order, 1983. The Wafaqi Mohtasib does not have jurisdiction under Article 9 of the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983 to enforce compliance with recommendations made by a Minister if such recommendations are beyond statutory authority. The jurisdiction of the Wafaqi Mohtasib is restricted to cases involving maladministration, and the allocation or lease of public property under statutory schemes does not fall within its purview. ----Cited Case: Master Chiragh Din v. Abdul Hakim (PLD 1974 Lahore 370) (d) Contract Act, 1872: ----S. 23—Public policy—Agreement opposed to law—Void ab initio. An agreement or allotment made in contravention of statutory provisions or public policy is void ab initio under Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872. The lease of public property without following prescribed legal procedures, even if based on ministerial recommendations, is unenforceable and null from its inception. ----Cited Cases: Hameedullah v. Headmistress, Government Girls School Chokara (1997 SCMR 855) Maulana Abdul Haque Baloch v. Government of Balochistan (PLD 2013 SC 641) (e) Public Property and State Assets: ----Custodianship of public assets—Role of courts—Obligation to protect public interest. Courts are the custodians of public property and have an inalienable obligation to ensure that public assets are not squandered or misallocated through arbitrary actions or misuse of authority. Any superstructure built on an unlawful lease or allotment must collapse automatically once the foundational order is declared void. ----Cited Cases: Provincial Government through Collector, Kohat v. Shabbir Hussain (PLD 2005 SC 337) Al-Shafique Housing Society v. P.M.A (PLD 1992 SC 113) Multiline Associates v. Ardeshir Cowasjee (PLD 1995 SC 423) (f) Rule of Law: ----Authority and jurisdiction—Exercise within legal limits—Illegality of actions beyond statutory mandate. Authorities and executive offices must act strictly within their statutory jurisdiction. Any act, order, or direction issued beyond the statutory mandate, including ministerial recommendations for lease of public property, is void ab initio. Courts must ensure adherence to statutory procedures to uphold the rule of law and prevent misuse of authority. (g) Disposition: ----Lease declared void—Orders set aside—Direction for compliance with law. The orders of the Wafaqi Mohtasib and subsequent directions were declared without lawful authority and jurisdiction. The lease of the plot to Respondent No.1 was canceled as void ab initio. The petitioner-Board was directed to proceed in accordance with the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 and the 1977 Scheme for any future actions. Disposition: Petition allowed; impugned orders set aside; lease canceled.

Summary: Issues:The legality and reasonableness of the amendments to the Scheme for the assessment or reassessment of rent for evacuee trust properties.---Judgment:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgment of the Peshawar High Court. The Court concluded that the amendments to the Scheme, particularly clauses 10 and 11, were not arbitrary, oppressive, or unreasonable.----Rationale:The Supreme Court found that the revised Scheme provided a fair and transparent procedure for the assessment and reassessment of rent, addressing the deficiencies identified in the Muzzafar Khan case. The Scheme mandates that rent assessment must consider market rates and rents of similar properties in the vicinity, ensuring that the District Officer's powers are not unbridled. The Scheme also ensures transparency by making proposed assessments available for public inspection and providing tenants with the opportunity to file objections and receive hearings. Furthermore, the Scheme allows for periodic reassessment of rent every six years with an annual increase rate of eight percent, ensuring fairness and preventing exploitation.---Citations and Precedents Relied on by the Court:Muzzafar Khan v. Evacuee Trust Property [2002 CLC 1819]: This case served as a reference point for assessing the reasonableness of the amendments. The Supreme Court distinguished the current Scheme from the one criticized in Muzzafar Khan, noting that the deficiencies identified in the earlier case had been addressed.--McInnes v. Onslow-Fane [(1978) 1 WLR 1520]: Cited to emphasize the importance of legitimate expectation and procedural fairness in administrative actions. The Supreme Court applied these principles to the amendments in the Scheme, finding that they provided sufficient protection for tenants' rights and legitimate expectations.