IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
PRESENT:
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN
MR. JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI
CIVIL APPEAL NO.668 OF 2022
(Against the judgment dated 18012022 of the Lahore
High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi passed in
Civil Revision No.373/2022)
Raja Ali Zaman (deed.) thr. LRs and 
...Appellant(s)
another
VERSUS
Evacuee Trust Property Board and ...Respofldent(S)
another
For the Appellants: Mr. M. Munir Paracha, ASC
Date of Hearing:
Mr. Hafiz Ahsan A. Khokhar, ASC
Mr. M. Amir Malik, ASC/AOR
Mr. Wasirn Sajjad, Sr. ASC
Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah, AOR
(fri CMA No 539912022)
04.08.2022
For Respondents No.1
For Respondent No.2:
For the Applicant:
JUDGMENT
IJAZ UI, AJISAN, J:-. Through the instant Appeal,
the Appellants have challenged the judgment of the Lahore
High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi (hereinafter
referred to as the "High Court") dated 18.0 1.2022 (hereinafter
referred to as the "Impugned Judgment") whereby the
revision petition filed by the Respondents was allowed, the
judgments an decrees of the Civil Judge 1st Class, Rawalpindi
(hereinafter referred to as the "Trial Court") and the
Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi (hereinafter referred to
as the "Appellate Court") were set aside, and the suit of the
Appellants was decreed.
2. The necessary facts giving rise to this us are that
commercial property No.B-2(b) situated in Liaquat Market,
Iqbal Road, Rawalpindi (hereinafter referred to as the "suit
property") was owned by the Evacuee Trust Property Board
(hereinafter referred to as 
c1ETPB") The suit land was
originally rented out to Raja Ali Zamafl & Raja Muhammad
BanaraS (hereinafter referred to as the "Appellants") by the
Deputy Commissioner/ Chairman defunct Evacuee Trust
Committee via order dated 16.05.1964. During their tenancy,
the Appellants approached the Federal Minister for Social
Welfare & Rural Development and sought outright sale of the
suit property in their favour. The Federal Minister assented to
the Appellants' request and allowed the sale of the suit land
to the Appellants vide memorandum dated 22.03.1977. When
the Federal Government was made aware of the
memorandum dated 22.03.1977, it issued memorandum
dated 13.05.1977 and restrained ETPB from finalizing the
deal. The matter ostensibly came to an end but thereafter, on
06.06.1992, the Deputy Administrator ETPB, Rawalpindi
executed Sale Deed (Exh.P4) dated 06-01.1992 (hereinafter
referred to as the "Sale Deed") in favour of the Appellants.
Being aggrieved of the sale deed, ETPB filed a suit for
declaration, cancellation of the sale deed as well as
permanent and mandatory injunction against the Appellants.
This suit was dismissed by the Trial Court vide judgement
dated 17.03.2002. ETPB appealed the judgement of the Trial
Court The Appellate Court, vide judgement dated
17.01.2008, dismissed the appeal but allowed the cross-
I
CIVIL MflAL •Q6sOLeU 
3
objection of the Appellants herein to the extent of Issue No. 1.
When the matter was assailed before the High Court, it vide
the impugned judgement, set aside the concurrent findings of
the lower fora and decreed the suit of ETPB as prayed for. The
judgement of the High Court is now under challenge before
this Court.
3. The main argument advanced by the learned
counsel for the Appellants is that the High Court had erred in
law by heavily relying on a judgement passed by this Court in
Messrs. Mustafa Impex, Karachi & others vs. Govt. of
Pakistan thr. Secretary Finance, Islamabad & others (PLD
2016 SC 808).He contends that Article 99 of the Constitution
of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as it stood before the 18th
Amendment, allowed executive authorities (in this case, the
ETPB) to exercise their authority under the law and relevant
rules without having to route it through the Federal
Government, contends that Mustafa Impex (supra) interpreted
Article 99 of the Constitution post18th Amendment and since
the sale deed was executed well before the 18th Amendment,
Mustafa Impex was inapplicable to the instant case. He
further contends that it was not the Appellants' burden to
ensure that the relevant officials were duly authorised by the
ETPB to carry out the sale in question when the sale deed
took place and that the Appellants could not be made to
suffer for not inquiring into what ostensibly appeared to be
departmental practice and procedure. He prayed that the
Ova AfltA&a OF 20fl
4
impugned judgement may be set aside and that the
judgements of the lower for a restored.
4.
The learned counsel for ETPB on the other hand
has argued in favour of the impugned judgement. He
contends that the sale deed in question was executed
incompetently and was in violation of the relevant ETPB laws
and rules. He further contends that no approval was ever
accorded to the sale by the Federal Government and that the
entire process was initiated through memorandum dated
22.03.1977 which had no lawful authority. Lastly, he
contends that the sale of the land was only permissible once
all the relevant processes and approvals were followed by the
ETPB and it is only when the Federal Government has
recommended a sale that land under the ETPB's ownership
may be sold off through a private treaty.
5.
The Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 has
also defended the impugned judgement.
6.
During the pendency of this Appeal, CMA
No.5399/2022 was moved by the Learned Sr. ASC for the
Applicants seeking impleadment of various persons who had
subsequently purchased shops in the suit property. He
contends that the Applicants were bona Me purchasers and
had purchased shops in the suit property for valuable
consideration and had not been impleaded by the ETPB in
any of the proceedings before the Courts below even though
they were necessary and proper parties for the purposes of
cmknl.4L -o — or fl 
5
the present Us. As far as subsequent purchasers from the
Appellants is concerned, their fate is intrinsically connected
with them. They would sink or swim with them depending on
the outcome of the appeal as would be seen herein below.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties
at length and gone through the case record with their
assistance. The following questions fall for the determination
of this Court:
1. UNDER WHAT LAW OR RULES IS ETPB
AUTHORISED TO SELL PROPERTY UNDER ITS
OWNERSHIP?
2. HOW CAN AUTHORISATION BE GRANTED FOR
SALE OF THE LAND UNDER
MANAGEMENT/CONTROL OF ETPB BY
EITHER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR BY
ETPB ITSELF ON BEHALF OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT?
3. IF THERE IS A VIOLATION OF EITHER LAW,
RULES OR PROCEDURE, WHAT EFFECT
WOULD IT HAVE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE
PARTIES?
UNDER WHAT LAW OR RULES IS ETPB AUTHORISED TO
SELL PROPERTY UNDER ITS OWNERSHIP?
8. Before we proceed to discuss the merits of the case, it is
prudent to first discuss the relevant laws, rules and
regulations etc. that are applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the instant appeal. ETPB was constituted by
virtue of Section 3 of the Evacuee Trust Properties
(Management & Disposal) Act of 1975 (hereinafter referred to
as the "ETPB ACT"). The ETPB Act was deemed to have taken
effect from 01 06.1974 by virtue of Section 1 of the same. The
functions of ETPB are enumerated in Section 4 of the ETPB
Act. The relevant portions of Section 4are reproduced below
for ease of reference:
Section 4. Functions of the Board
(1)The general supervision and control of all evacuee
trust property shall, subject to any directions that may
be given by the Federal Government, vest in the Board,
and the Board shall take such action as it deems fit for
the proper management, maintenance and disposal of
such property in accordance with the provisions of this
Act and the rules, schemes or directions made or
issued there under.
(2)ln particular and without prejudice to the generality
of the foregoing power, the functions of the Board shall
be:-
(a)
(c)
(d)toscfl, dispose of, or transfer to such person or
body, and on such terms and conditions, as the
Federal Government, may direct or with the
priorapproval of the Federal Government make an
endowment of, or otherwise manage, evacuee trust
property consistent with the objects qfthfs Act or a
scheme or for any other object a )proved_kJLthe
Federal Gverflteflt,
(e) ...;
(1)
(g)
(h)..;
(i)
U)
(k)..;
(1)
(n)...
(0)
(p)
7
(r)to prepare a scheme or schemes with the prior
approval of the Federal Government for promoting
the objects of this Act, and;
(s)...; (Underlining and Highlighting is ours)
It is important to note that sub-section 2(d) of Section 4 was
inserted after the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and
Disposal) (Amendment) Ordinance of 1984 was promulgated.
Before this amendment, the role of ETPB was strictly
custodial in nature. By virtue of Section 6, all evacuee
properties were vested in the Federal Government and land
under ETPB's control was divided into two main categories
namely: a) Rural Area; and b) Urban Area. Urban Area is
defined under s.2(l) of the ETPB Act. It is reproduced below
for reference:-
Section 2 Definitions
(I) "Urban Area" means the area situated within the limits of
a municipal corporation, a municipal committee, a notified
area committee, a town area committee, a small town
committee, a sanitary committee or a cantonment as those
limits existed on the fourteenth day of August, 1947.
It is important to note that the ETPB Act was passed after the
Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Law (Repeal) Act of
t
1975 (the "Repealing Act") was passed w.e.L 01.07.1974.
Section 3 of the Repealing Act is of importance for the 
F
purposes of the present Appeal. It is reproduced below for
reference:-
Section 3 Transfer of Property
(1) All properties, both urban or rural, including
agricultural land, other than such properties attached to
charitable, religious or educational trusts or institutions,
whether occupied or un-occupied, which may be available
for disposal immediately before the repeal of the aforesaid
Acts and Regulations or which may become available for
disposal after such repeal as a result of a final order passed
cIyIkMflAL 10A6• Of 1022 
S
under sub-section (3) of section 2, shall stand
transferred to the Government, for disposal-
(a) in the case of urban properties, by the Government
under a scheme to be prepared by t and
(b)
(2) .. (Underlining and Highlighting is ours)
Alter the ETPB Act was passed, a scheme was framed by
ETPB in 1977 i.e. Scheme For The Management and Disposal
of Available Urban Properties Situated In The Province of
Punjab, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the "1977 Scheme").
Chapter III of the 1977 Scheme deals with the submission
and scrutiny of applications. The relevant paras of the
chapter are reproduced below for ease of reference:-
3. Inviting of Applications
The Member, Board of Revenue (Residual properties)
may, by notification issue from time to time in the official
Gazette, invite applications for the transfer of available
properties mentioned in paragraph 6. Such applications
shall be made to the De puty Administrator (Residual
Properties) of the area concerned in such form and
manner as may be prescribed. (Underlining is ours)
5. Scrutiny of Applications
The Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties) shall
scrutinize the applications and if he finds that the
application is deficient essential particulars, he shall get
the deficiency supplied and shall determine entitlement.
Chapter IV of the 1977 Scheme deals with disposal of
available properties. The relevant paras of Chapter IV are
reproduced below for ease of reference:-
6. Transfer of house, shop and building site having
construction.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Scheme, an
available house or shop of any value in possession of a
person may, If he applies in this behalf, be transferred
L'j •' d_Zt) 
9
to him on transfer price or on such price as may be
fixed by the Administrator (Residual properties) of the
area concerned.
Provided that where a house or a shop is applied for by
more than one person in possession, it may be transferred
to them jointly.
(2) An available building site on which a person in
possession has raised a permanent construction and
applies for its transfer, it may be transferred to him on the
transfer price:
Provided that in addition to the constructed area, only such
portion of the available open space may be transferred to
the applicant which may not exceed three times the
constructed area.
(3)
Where any person having made a pennanent
construction on a building site does not apply for its
transfer, it shall be dis posed of through unrestricted
public auction along with the construction. The value of
such construction shall be determined by the Deputy
Administrator (Residual Properties) of the area concerned
and paid to such a person out of the auction proceeds by
such authority as may be specified.
11.Sale by Auction
A house, shop or a building site having permanent
construction for the transfer of which no application is
received and every property that is cancelled from the
name of a defaulter and a vacant building site shall be
disposed of by un-restricted auction.
12. Disposal of houses, shops or a building site by
negotiation
If a house, a shop or a building site havin g been put to
auction twice fetches no bid or fetches a bit short of
the reserve price it shall be disposed by negotiation by
inviting sealed tenders which shall be opened by the
Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties) of the area
concerned in the presence of the tenderers. If the highest
offer made for such a house, a shop or a building site is
equal to or exceeds 75% of its reserve price, it may be
10
accepted by the Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties)
and where the highest offer made is below 75% of the
reserve price but not less than 50% it may be accepted by
the Administrator (Residual Properties), of the area or
where the highest offer is below 50% it may be accepted by
the Member, Board of Revenue (Residual Properties).
Chapter V of the 1977 Scheme deals with Auction
Committees and the Manner of Auction. For the purposes of
this instant Appeal, paras 19 and 20 are of importance. They
are reproduced below for ease of reference:-
19.Acceptance or refusal of bid.
No bid below the reserve price shall be accepted. However,
the competent Authority may refuse to accept the highest
bid without assigning reasons.
20. Reserve price
The reserve price of each property placed in auction shall
be its transfer price.
9. Having gone over the relevant laws as well as the
1977 Scheme, it is clear and obvious to us that in order for a
property to be disposed of by ETPB, it has to go through a
rigorous and transparent process before it can be transferred
to any private party. Before any evacuee land or property can
be sold, it must be notified by the relevant Member Board of
Revenue (Residual Properties) in the Official Gazette under
para 3 of the 1977 Scheme. Once the requisite notification
has been gazetted, applications need to be moved by
prospective bidders to the concerned Deputy Administrator
(Residual Properties) in order to become a part of the transfer
process. A person in possession of the notified property/land
may move an application to the concerned Deputy
Administrator (Residual Properties) who is then required,
11
under para 6 of the 1977 Scheme, to transfer the notified
land on such price as may be fixed by the concerned
Administrator (Residual Properties). In the other instance,
where no application is received, a process of un-restricted
public auction commences where two rounds of public
auction have to take place as per rule l2before the notified
land can be sold by the ETPB through negotiation/ private
treaty. Even where public auctions have failed and the ETPB
resorts to disposing of the notified land under para 12, it is
still important to note that negotiations can only take place
after a tendering process has taken place and prospective
tenderers have deposited their tenders with the ETPB. The
ethos of transparency that pervades through para. 12 can also
be seen by the fact that all tenders need to be opened by the
concerned Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties) in the
presence of all other prospective tenderers or their duly-
authorised representatives before a bid can be accepted. The
Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties) is also
constrained by the fact that if the tendered price is below the
reserve price, the notified land can only be sold if the
competent authority in the ETPB hierarchy accords its
approval.
HOW CAN AUTHORISATION BE GRANTED FOR SALE OF
THE LAND UNDER MANAGEMENT/CONTROL OF ETPB BY
EITHER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR BY ETPB
ITSELF ON BEHALF OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?
10. Before we can discuss how the Federal
Government or ETPB itself on behalf of the Federal
Government may direct sale of land under the management
and control of ETPB, it may be prudent to go over Section 3 of
the ETPB Act, 1975. The relevant portions of Section 3 are
reproduced below for ease of reference:-
S.SCONSTITUTION OF THE BOARD
(l)The Federal Government shall constitute a Board, to be
known as Evacuee Trust Property Board, for the
management and disposal of the evacuee trust
prom .
(2)The Board shall be a body corporate by the name
aforesaid having perpetual succession and common seal,
with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property, both
movable and immovable, and to contract, and shall by the
said name sue and be sued.
(3) The Board shall consist of a Chairman and such
members as the Federal Government may, by notification in
the official Gazette, appoint.
(4) The Chairman shall be appointed by the Federal
Government on such terms and conditions as it may
determine, shall hold office during the pleasure of the
Federal Government and shall be the administrative and
executive head of the Board ... (Highlighting is ours)
Before any land can be sold by ETPB, it has to first conduct
an internal board meeting and decide whether to sell land
under its management and control. If, through a Board
meeting, ETPB decided to sell any land under its management
and control, a resolution has to be moved and passed to that
effect which would then be subject to approval of the Federal
Government. This is especially important in light of the fact
that the status of ETPB, as made clear in Section 3 ibid, is
managerial and custodial. It is also important to note that the
land that is managed and supervised by ETP8 is not its own
cmkflka½tQf2fl2 
13
land/property. All land or properties managed and supervised
by ETPB belong to the Federal Government and it is only after
seeking permission from the Federal Government that the
ETPB can be permitted to sell or dispose of land under its
supervision. Therefore, it is incumbent upon ETPB to seek
permission from the Federal Government before it can dispose
of any land under its management or supervision. If the
ETPB's Board never moves a resolution recommending sale
seeks approval/ permission to sell, then it will be deemed that
the Federal Government's permission was never sought for
the sale of ETPB-managed land. If, however, it was the
Federal Government that wished to sell any of the land under
the management of ETPB, the process for doing so would be
to refer the matter to the ETPB's Board, allow the Board to
deliberate on the matter and then give its recommendations
to the Federal Government before any sale is carried out.
After the Federal Government has accorded its approval, the
Chairman of ETPB would then exercise authority under
Section 12 of the ETPB Act to designate an officer to carry out
the sale or disposal of the land/property. For ease of
reference, Section 12 of the ETPB Act is reproduced below:-
Section 12. Appointment And Duties Of officers And
Staff
(1)The Chairman may, with the prior approval of the
Federal Government and on such terms and conditions as
the Board may determine, appoint Administrators, Deputy
Administrators, Assistant Administrators, and may also
appoint such other officers and staff as may be necessary
for the efficient performance of the functions of the Board.
r - +
14
(2) The Chairman may, by general order or special
order, provide for the distribution or allocation of
work to be performed by persons appointed under sub-
section (1). (Underlining and Highlighting is ours)
In essence, in order to sell or dispose of land managed by the
ETPB, a resolution has to be passed by the ETPB's Board
which is then approved by the Federal Government. Once
approval has been accorded by the Federal Government, an
officer is designated and authorised by the Chairman in terms
of Section 12(2) of the ETPB Act who shall then carry out the
sale or disposal of the land/property in question in the terms
laid down by the Federal Government-sanctioned Board
resolution.
IF THERE IS A VIOLATION OF EITHER LAW, RULES OR
PROCEDURE, WHAT EFFECT WOULD IT HAVE ON THE
RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES?
11. Coming to the merits of the instant appeal, in
their written statement before the Trial Court, the Appellants
have contended that they had applied to the Federal
Government for the sale of the suit property to them.
However, there is nothing on the record to suggest that they
had ever applied to the ETPB under Para 6 of the 1977
Scheme. Instead, the Appellants approached the relevant
Federal Minister as opposed to the ETPB who, vide his
memorandum dated 22.03.1977, accorded approval for the
sale. No doubt if an appropriate application under Para 6had
been moved by the Appellants, the matter would have been
taken up by the Board, but the suit property could only have
been sold subject to a resolution to that effect as well as the
Omk AlflAL NO*a o fl 
15
necessary approval of the Federal Government. Instead, the
Appellants approached the concerned Minister. There is no
provision in the law governing the ETPB, the relevant rules or
the 1977 Scheme which allows a Federal Minister to approve
sale of evacuee land in either his discretion or in relaxation of
rules. It is important to note that Para 6 starts with the
phrase: "Subject to the provisions of this Scheme..." which
highlights that even if one were to assume that an application
to the Federal Government via the Minister concerned was a
competent application under Para 6 of the 1977 Scheme, it
would still be necessary for the Federal Government to refer
the matter to the ETPB's Board for deliberation. It is only
after the Board had deliberated on the matter and passed a
resolution for the sale of the suit property could the Federal
Government have accorded their approval for a sale in favour
of the Appellants. A bare perusal of the memorandum dated
22.03.1977 would also show that the price was determined by
the concerned Federal Minister who was not the competent
person to assess the value of the suit property under the
1977 Scheme. In holding that the Minister was not the
competent person to be approached for the purposes of Para
6 of the 1977 Scheme, we hold that no competent application
had ever been moved by the Appellants within the
contemplation of the 1977 Scheme. In the absence of an
appropriate application before the Competent Authority, and
without it being processed in the departmental hierarchy
according to the law and rules, the entire superstructure of
the transaction which culminated in the Sale Deed was based
c1yIkMfrMro,. OF fl2 
16
on an incompetent and unlawful exercise and therefore any
and all actions taken on the basis of the memorandum dated
22.03.1977 were unlawful and inconsequential on the rights
of ETPB/Federai Government insofar as far as ownership of
the suit property was concerned. The Learned Counsel for the
Appellant could not point to any law or rule which could
reasonably lead us to believe that the Federal Minister was
allowed to exercise any power let alone discretion in
relaxation of the 1977 Scheme when he acted both as the
ETPB in accepting an application of the Appellants, as the
Administrator (Residual Properties) when he determined the
price of the suit property Rs. 100,000/- per Kanal. We find
that the Minister could had no power or authority on behalf of
the Federal Government and approve the sale of the suit
property specially so in the absence of a resolution passed by
the ETPB's Board seeking permission for sale of the suit
property in favour of the Appellants.
12. As far as the contentions of the Learned Counsel
for the Appellants are concerned that the High Court has
relied mainly on the Mustafa lmpex (supra) in allowing the
revision petition of the Respondents even though the said
case interpreted Article 90 of the Constitution post-18th
Amendment, it is important to note that Article 173 of the
Constitution of Pakistan deals with the power of both the
Federation as well as the Provinces to acquire property and to
make contracts etc. It is reproduced below for ease of
reference:-
17
173. Power to acquire property and to make contracts,
etc.
(1)The executive authority of the Federation and of a
Province shall extend, subject to any Act of the
appropriate Legislature, to the grant, sale, disposition or
mortgage of any property vested in, and to the purchase or
acquisition of property on behalf of, the Federal
Government or, as the case may be, the Provincial
Government, and to the making of contracts.
(2)All property acquired for the purposes of the Federation
or of a Province shall vest in the Federal Government or, as
the case may be, in the Provincial Government.
(3)All contracts made In the exercise of the executive
authority of the Federation or of a Province shall
beexpressed to be made In the name of the President or,
as the case may be, the Governor of the Province, and all
such contracts and all assurances of property made in the
exercise of that authority shall be executed on behalf of the
President or Governor by such persons and in such manner
as he may direct or authorize.
(4)Neither the President, nor the Governor of a Province,
shall be personally liable in respect of any contract or
assurance made or executed in the exercise of the executive
authority of the Federation or, as the case may be, the
Province, nor shall any person making or executing any
such contract or assurance on behalf of any of them be
personally liable in respect thereof.
(5) Transfer of land by the Federal Government or a
Provincial Government shall be regulated b y law.
There is a presumption that the Legislature intends to
legislate on matters in complete harmony with the Articles of
the Constitution and that the Courts will give effect to the will
of the Legislature which manifests itself through the laws
passed by the Legislature. In the present appeal, in order to
give effect to the Parliament's intention, a harmonious
interpretation of Article 173 of the Constitution read with the
ETPB Act (specifically Section 4(d) & 4(e)of the said Act) would
be the one where it would be presumed that since Article 173
of the Constitution is "subject to any Act of the appropriate
Legislature", all acts of the Federal Government (or a Federal
Minister) not in compliance with or going against the express
I--
W APtLU. S6S OP afla
18
provisions of an Act of the appropriate Legislature would
cease to retain their executive nature as envisaged under
Article 173 of the Constitution. In essence, what this would
mean for the purposes of this appeal is that when the
concerned Federal Minister accorded approval for sale of the
suit property when he was not authorised to do so by the
competent Legislature (in this case, the Majlis-e-Shoora), his
actions cannot be considered as executive actions in terms of
Article 173 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. If the
actions of the concerned Federal Minister were bereft of
executive nature, then as a natural corollary, they cannot be
construed as being authorised by the President of Pakistan in
terms of Article 99 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 as it
stood in 1977.
13. On being confronted with the question as to
whether ETPB's board had ever moved a resolution to the
effect that the suit property is to be sold to the Appellants, the
Learned Counsel for the Appellants was unable to point out
any document which could reasonably lead us to conclude
the existence of such a resolution. Even otherwise, no
resolution from the ETPB's Board sanctioning sale of the suit
property to the Appellants was ever placed on record. There is
also nothing on the record to suggest that the concerned
Minister had ever directed the ETPB's board to deliberate on
the matter and pass a resolution concerning the sale of the
suit property to the Appellants. If there was never any
resolution, then there was never any sanction of the sale
19
either. If there was never any sanction, then there could have
been no approval from the Federal Government for sale of the
suit property. If there was never any approval from the
Federal Government, then the Sale Deed itself would be illegal
as well as ineffective owing to the reason that in light of
Article 173 of the Constitution, the President would not be
deemed to have accorded approval for the sale of the suit
property through the Federal Government. The High Court
had therefore rightly concluded that being bereft of its
executive nature, the Sale Deed had been obtained without
the approval of the Federal Government and was therefore
illegal and voidab-initio.
14. In light of what has been discussed above, we find
that the judgment of the High Court is well-reasoned and has
arrived at the correct conclusion after taking into
consideration all the material available on the record. No mis-
reading or non-reading of the evidence has been pointed out
by the Learned Counsel for the Appellants nor has he been
able to point out any ground to take a view different than the
one taken by the High Court. As a result, we do not find any
merit in this appeal. It is dismissed. All miscellaneous
applications are also accordingly
ISLA3I4,BAD. THE
4th of August, 2022
Kkjgft Sahibzada 1926, LC*/
P APPROptREPORTING*
