Summary: ----Ss.376 & 383---Police official---Succession certificate---Death on duty---Compensation amount---Tarka---Scope---Petitioner/widow of Shaheed police official was aggrieved of inclusion of name of mother of deceased in succession certificate pertaining to compensation amount awarded on death in line of duty---Validity---Compensation granted to a person after his death does not fall within the definition of Tarka---Mother of deceased could not claim any share in compensation amount---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside order passed by Lower Appellate Court and restored that of Trial Court, excluding name of mother of deceased from succession certificate for amount in question---Revision was allowed accordingly. Jamil Shah for Petitioner. Munir Ahmed Kakar for Respondent No. 1. Allauddin Kakar, Assistant Advocate General for Respondents Nos. 2 to 4. Date of hearing: 22nd December, 2023.

Summary: a) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925) –– Ss. 372, 376 & 383 –– Succession certificate –– Revocation –– Government compensation for martyrdom –– Whether such amount constitutes "Tarka" –– Validity –– Petitioner (widow of deceased) was granted succession certificate in 2015 regarding Government compensation awarded after martyrdom of her husband –– Respondents (mother and daughters of deceased) filed revocation application alleging improper exclusion of legal heirs –– Trial Court and Appellate Court allowed revocation and granted succession certificate afresh as per Sharai Fatwa –– Held, latest Fatwa clarified that government compensation awarded after the death of a person does not fall within the definition of "Tarka" (inheritable estate), therefore, mother of deceased was not entitled to claim share in such posthumous benefit –– Further held, prior succession certificate was validly issued, and orders of courts below suffered from legal infirmity –– Rights of minor daughters were protected through declaration and assurance by maternal uncle who undertook responsibility for safeguarding their share –– Orders of courts below set aside and original succession certificate restored. Cited Case: • Mst. Hussain Jamala v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (PLD 2013 Peshawar 01) Disposition: Revision allowed; succession certificate dated 19th November 2015 restored. **(b) Islamic Law –– Compensation awarded posthumously by State –– Not part of "Tarka" –– Fatwa –– Applicability –– Held, only the wealth and assets owned or due to deceased during their lifetime constitute Tarka for the purpose of Islamic inheritance –– Financial benefits or compensation granted by the government after death as an ex gratia gesture or in recognition of service/martyrdom do not qualify as estate property and hence are not distributable among heirs as per inheritance law –– Fatwa dated 1st June 2023 by Mufti Gul Hassan reaffirmed this principle –– Accordingly, mother of deceased could not claim share in such amount. Disposition: Revision allowed. **(c) Civil Procedure –– Protection of minors’ interest –– Assurance of guardianship –– Unregistered property –– Relevance –– Minor daughters’ rights in succession were secured through their maternal uncle who undertook responsibility for preserving their share –– Though property purchased in their name was not yet registered, the Court accepted the undertaking of guardian and considered the arrangement sufficient under the circumstances –– Held, minors’ legal entitlements remained safeguarded and were not prejudiced by restoration of original succession certificate. Disposition: Revision allowed.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Provisioning of private benefit by non-profit organization disentitles it from claiming concession and benefits under Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Background: The petitioner, Kashf Foundation, challenged the orders issued by the Commissioner Inland Revenue (IR) and Chief Commissioner Inland Revenue (LTU) in which its status as a Non-Profit Organization (NPO) was withdrawn. The issue stemmed from allegations that Kashf Foundation had extended private benefits to an associated entity, Kashf Holdings (Pvt) Limited, through a loan transaction at a concessional rate. This, according to the tax authorities, was not in line with the arm’s length principle and violated the conditions for maintaining NPO status under Section 2(36) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. ----Issues: 1- Whether Kashf Foundation’s loan to Kashf Holdings (Pvt) Limited violated the requirements for maintaining its NPO status under Section 2(36) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. 2- Whether the loan and other transactions between Kashf Foundation and Kashf Holdings (Pvt) Limited conferred private benefits in violation of Rule 217 of the Income Tax Rules, 2002. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the decisions of the tax authorities. The court found that the loan extended by Kashf Foundation to Kashf Holdings (Pvt) Limited at a concessional rate, along with the acquisition of shares in Kashf Holdings (Pvt) Limited at a premium, conferred private benefits on the associated entity. These transactions were in violation of the arm's length principle and Section 2(36) of the Income Tax Ordinance, which prohibits NPOs from providing private benefits to any person or entity. The court further noted that Kashf Holdings (Pvt) Limited is a for-profit entity, and the loan and share transactions improved its financial position at the expense of Kashf Foundation, a not-for-profit entity. Additionally, the court observed that the restructuring of the loan and the impairment loss encountered by Kashf Foundation indicated continuing benefits to Kashf Holdings (Pvt) Limited. This, coupled with the fact that the shareholders of Kashf Holdings (Pvt) Limited, including Ms. Roshaneh Zafar, had a direct interest in these transactions, reinforced the conclusion that private benefits were conferred. The court concluded that Kashf Foundation had failed to meet the requirements for NPO status, and therefore, the withdrawal of its NPO approval was justified. ----Citations/Precedents: Jaipur Charitable Trust v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (1981 127 ITR 620 Delhi) Hamdard Laboratories India v. Assistant Director of Income Tax Congregational Union of NSW v. Thistlethwayte [(1952) 87 CLR 375] Stratton v. Simpson [(1970) 125 CLR 138] Treat Corporation Ltd. v. ELMAC Ltd. (2011 YLR 2825)

Summary: Writ Petition No. 12787 of 2023, decided on 26th December, 2023. Lahore Development Authority Land Use Rules, 2014 --- - ---Rr. 13(2) & 14---Establishment /construction of a police station--- Public building site---Encroachment over amenity area, allegation of---Primary allegation was that use of land for construction of police station had been allowed in a dominantly residential area, which, violated mandate of relevant laws / Rules---Validity---It was not disputed that site-in-question was designated as public building site in the Master Plan, since 1985---Public building, inter alia, included police station, besides other classes of buildings---Rule 13(2) of Lahore Development Authority Land Use Rules, 2014 protects the land use plans till such time that new Master Plan for Lahore Division was prepared or amended---Rule 14 of Land use Rules, 2014 provided that in case of any conflict or inconsistency in respect of the permitted and permissible uses in the existing master plan, preference would be extended to the Land use Rules, 2014, vis-?-vis other Rules---Petitioners failed to appreciate that grant of permission for construction of police station, at the site, already approved for public building site under approved Master Plan, did not imply conversion of land or revision or amendment in the Master Plan---Pertinently, site was designated and reserved for public building site, which could not be classified as residential area for the purposes of land use, merely because it was abutting residential area---There is no cavil that matters have to be decided in the context of peculiar facts---Even otherwise petitioners failed to show how they would be prejudiced by construction of police station-- -No case of encroachment of amenity area was made out---Decision to allow construction of police station at public building site otherwise was the domain of policy makers---Thus, High Court found no persuasive reason to exercise constitutional jurisdiction in absence of any breach of fundamental rights---Constitutional petition, being meritless, was dismissed, in circumstances. Muhammad Chand Khan for Petitioners. Waqar Saeed Khan, Assistant A.G. on Court's call. Haris Azmat for LDA. Sajjad Ahmad, ASI Police Station Liaqat Abad, Lahore. Order Asim Hafeez, J .--- Grievance raised is primarily directed against the construction of police station at Plot No.224, Block-Q, Model Town Extension __ having measurement of 3-K 06-M. Underlying reasons for grievance are twofold, firstly, that the approval extended was in violation of the Land Use Rules, 2014 (Rules, 2014), and, secondly, that such establishment could not be constructed in dominantly residential area. 2. Essential facts are that request for establishment of police station was received and suit land was found suitable for the purpose. The site identified for police station was designated as 'public building site' in the Master plan of the Model Town Extension __ and such designation existed since 1985. Over the years, a mosque was constructed, bordering the boundary of the police station site, and a private school were constructed and are operational. Houses of the petitioners are not located opposite the police station site but in the vicinity. Aggrieved of the approval, petitioners filed constitutional petition bearing W.P No.29653/2016, which was disposed of on 23.06.2019 with direction to decide the grievance through speaking order. After hearing the petitioners their representation was rejected vide order of 15.05.2017. Notably, petitioners filed another petition bearing W.P No.45834/2017, which was dismissed on 14.09.2020, on the premise that order of 15.05.2017 was not assailed. ICA No.48352/2020 met same fate and petitioners approached Hon'ble Supreme Court through CPLA No.1996-L/2020, but during pendency of said petition for leave to appeal instant petition is filed __ and as alleged CPLA was withdrawn. Petition is contested in this backdrop. 3. Precise submission is that construction of police station is contrary to the Rules, 2014, whereby provisioning of Police Station was neither a permitted nor permissible activity in residential area. Adds that construction of police station is permitted within land use reserved for commercial area(s) and not otherwise. Adds that Police Station constructed will be source of environmental pollution. 4. Conversely, learned counsel appearing for LDA emphasized that no change qua the land use was allowed, contrary to the mandate of approved Master Plan of 1985, upon allowing construction of police station, which site, since day one, was designated as public building site. Adds that approval was granted in 2016 and now building is complete and will be operational soon. On maintainability of the petition, it is it is/argued that representation was dismissed in May 2017 and petitioner waited for six years to throw the challenge again, which attracts laches. Adds that remedy of appeal was provided under Rule 27 of the Rules, 2014 and petitioner had not preferred appeal but making collateral attack through instant petition, which could not be allowed. Copy of Master plan was placed on record. Determination of the questions raised. 5. Delayed response against order of 15.05.2017 is conspicuous and no plausible explanation was extended to displace factum of knowledge thereof __ petitioners had knowledge of factum of order of 15.05.2017 upon dismissal of petition on 14.09.2020, wherein reference was made to the order of 15.05.2017, and instead of invoking remedy under the Rules, 2014, petitioner unsuccessfully challenged order before division bench of this court and thereafter approached Hon'ble Supreme Court and lately withdrew said petition in wake of pendency of instant petition. Primary allegation was that allowing of use of land for construction of police station violates mandate of the Rules, 2014. Argument is misconceived and fails to appreciate proximate facts, applicable Rules and context of existing Master Plan. It is not disputed that site in question was designated as public building site in the Master Plan, since 1985. Public building was defined under Lahore Development Authority Building and Zoning Regulations, 2007 inter alia included police station, besides other classes of buildings. It is not argued that Rules, 2014 have or had retrospective effect and upon promulgation thereof the existing Master Plan was no more enforceable. The significance, scope and effect of 'Lahore Development Authority Master Plan Rules, 2014' cannot be overlooked undermined, and particularly sub-rule (2) of Rule 13 thereof protects the land use plans till such time new Master Plan for Lahore Division is prepared or amended. Rule 14 of Master Plan Rules, 2014 provides that in case of any conflict or inconsistency in respect of the permitted and permissible uses in the existing master plan, preference would be extended to the Master Plan Rules 2014, vis-?-vis other rules. Rule 13(2) and Rule 14 of Master Plan Rules, 2014 are reproduced hereunder:- "13(2). The existing outline development plans, agro-ville development plan, land use plans and other development plans, if any in the area notified by other Government agencies shall remain in force till such time the new master plan for Lahore Division is prepared or the same are amended by the Authorities. 14. These rules to prevail. - In case of any conflict or inconsistency in respect of the permitted and permissible uses in the existing master plan or outline development plan or such other similar plans or the Lahore Development Authority Land Use (Classification, Reclassification redevelopment) Rules, 2009 and these rules, the provisions of these rules shall prevail to the extent of such conflict inconsistency." 6. Petitioners failed to appreciate that grant of permission for construction of police station, at the site, already approved for public building site under approved Master Plan, does not imply conversion of land or revision or amendment in the Master Plan. It is pertinent to mention that site was designated and reserved for public building site, which cannot be classified as residential area for the purposes of land use, merely because it is abutting residential area. There is no cavil that matters have to be decided in the context of peculiar facts. Even otherwise petitioners fail to show how they would be prejudiced upon construction of police station. No case of encroachment of amenity area is made out. Decision to allow construction of Police Station at public building site otherwise are the domain of policy makers. This court, in the circumstances of the case, finds no persuasive reason to exercise constitutional jurisdiction in absence of any breach of fundamental rights. Petition manifest absence of bona fide intent. 7. In view of the above, instant constitutional petition is devoid or merits or any plausible cause of action, hence, same is, hereby, dismissed. MQ/J-3/L Petition dismissed.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending