ETPB-provincial govt disputes do not constitute govt-to-govt case: FCC

ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has ruled that a dispute between a federal statutory corporation, such as the Evacuee Trust Property Board (ETPB), and a provincial department does not constitute a “dispute between two governments.”

The FCC judgment, authored by Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, in light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in case of Pakistan Railways v. Karachi Development Authority, said that the Evacuee Trust Property Board (ETPB), being a body with power to sue and be sued in its own name and expressly empowered to institute and defend suits and proceedings in a court of law, is a distinct juristic entity and cannot, simpliciter, be equated with the federal government. The description “Central Government through Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board” in the memo of parties is thus imprecise and constitutionally inaccurate.

Furthermore, mis-description of the petitioner as “Central Government through Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board, etc,” and any concession made at the bar could not divest the High Court of its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution.

A two-judge FCC bench, comprising Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, heard the Central Government through Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board’s petition against Member (Judicial-IV) Board of Revenue, Punjab. The bench, setting aside the Lahore High Court (LHC) order, asked it to decide the matter afresh in accordance with the law, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

The LHC, in an order dated 17 April 2024, passed in Writ Petition 14005/ 2020, said “it has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter as the dispute is inter se the two governments.”

The FCC judgment noted that the real contest, in the matter, is between the ETPB and the Punjab Education Department, qua land measuring 56 Kanals and 15 Marlas, admittedly evacuee trust property, which has historically been used as a cremation ground for the local Hindu community and is claimed to have been reserved for Mariyan Ahl-e-Hanud. The said land was later on mutated in favour of the Education Department vide Mutation No. 6141 dated 28 May 1989, giving rise to prolonged litigation between the two entities.

It was observed that the status and legal personality of the ETPB are governed by the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975. Section 3 (1) of the Act provides that the federal government shall constitute a Board to be known as the Evacuee Trust Property Board for the management and disposal of evacuee trust property.

The FCC noted that Section 3(2) of the Act expressly stipulates: “The Board shall be a body corporate by the name ETPB, having perpetual succession and a 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.”

The judgment further observed that Section 4 (2) (s) of the Act specifically empowers the Board “to institute and defend suits and proceedings in a court of law”, reinforcing that it is the proper litigating entity in matters concerning evacuee trust properties.

The judgment said that the 1973 Constitution recognises the federal government and the provincial governments; there is no constitutional entity known as the “Central Government”.

It mentioned that when the impugned order was passed, the original jurisdiction in any “dispute between any two or more governments” was vested in the Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 184 (1) of the Constitution. However, pursuant to the 27th constitutional amendment this jurisdiction now vests to the FCC under Article 175E (1) of the Constitution. The nature of this jurisdiction has not changed.

The judgment noted that in Pakistan Railways v. Karachi Development Authority, the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that a statutory or local authority, being a separate corporate body with its own funds and officers, could not be treated as the government for the purposes of Article 184 (1) of the Constitution.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025