A case pertaining to the ownership of a British-era building in Clifton, purchased by the late Nawab of Bhopal in 1947, has been pending before the Sindh High Court for years.

The litigation about Bhopal House is about two annexed properties, one in survey No25 measuring 2,233 square yards and housing the main residence and the second is in survey No26 measuring 2,459 square yards in Clifton Quarters.

Former career diplomat and ex-chairman of the Pakistan Cricket Board Shahryar Mohammad Khan, who is the maternal grandson of Nawab of Bhopal, had filed an appeal before a division bench of the SHC in 2016 against the judgement of a single-judge bench which had dismissed his lawsuit with regard to the ownership and possession of both the properties.

Foreign Office used the Clifton bungalow till 1962 and later an intelligence agency moved into it; SHC to take up issue tomorrow

A lawyer for the appellant said, currently, the property of survey No.25 (Bhopal House) was in the possession of the appellant since 1993 while in 2016 a division bench of SHC had also issued a restraining order for federal authorities not to interfere in the possession of the appellant about Bhopal House. However, the second property has still been in the use of an intelligence agency since 1962, she added.

A division bench of SHC headed by Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi is hearing the appeal and now it is fixed for hearing on Jan 20 (Thursday).

No progress has been made during last several hearings as the bench was informed in September this year that the lawyer for appellant Farogh Naseem, now the federal minister of law, was not in position to proceed with the matter on account of personal exigency and another lawyer, representing the appellant, sought time to prepare the case.

Thereafter, the division bench had directed the lawyer for the appellant to come prepared on the next hearing to proceed with the matter and also called the record and proceedings of the suit.

Initially, Princess Abida Sultaan, the eldest of three daughters born to Nawab Hamidullah Khan of Bhopal and only legal heir who migrated to Pakistan, had filed a suit in the SHC in 1995 seeking ownership of the properties in question. After her death in 2002 her son and only legal heir Sheharyar Khan had become the plaintiff in the lawsuit and on June 4, 2016 a single-judge bench dismissed the suit.

Mr Khan had moved an intra-court appeal before a two-judge bench of the SHC shortly after dismissal of the suit and on June 20, 2016 the division bench through an interim order had restrained the secretary of works division and other federal authorities concerned from causing interference in the possession of the appellant in Bhopal House and issued notices to the respondents.

The counsel for the appellant had argued before the division bench that the maternal grandfather of the appellant had purchased Bhopal House, bearing survey Nos. 25 and 26 at Clifton Quarters, consisting of the main house in survey No.25 through a registered sale deed dated July 1, 1947 and both properties were duly mutated in the official record of rights.

Citing the secretary of works division, the chief engineer of ministry of housing and the executive engineer of public works department as respondents in the appeal, the lawyer contended that the mother of the appellant had filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction after the then executive engineer of public works department Karachi through a letter dated June 5, 1995 directing her for restoration of the possession of the properties in favour of government.

He submitted that the impugned judgement and decree of the single bench was patently illegal based on misreading and non-reading of evidence, adding that the title of appellant over suit properties was admitted by the government in a letter dated Aug 15, 1992 of the ministry of foreign affairs wherein it was mentioned that Bhopal House was never transferred to the ministry.

The division bench in its June 2016 order had restrained the respondents from interfering in the possession of appellant in the property survey No. 25 (Bhopal House).

It was further argued in the appeal that Nawab Hamidullah Khan, who passed away in 1960, had purchased the properties in question from Seth Muchand Mohatta through a duly executed sale deed and mutation was also effected and later an order was also passed by the custodian of evacuee properties Karachi in this regard in 1955.

Quaid-i-Azam’s request

It stated that after the creation of Pakistan there was paucity of funds and accommodation for officials use and thus Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah had requested the Nawab to permit temporary use of the properties in question and a letter was sent to the Nawab in July 1947 and he had agreed to the request of the Quaid-i-Azam.

However, it was maintained in the appeal that the Nawab of Bhopal had only permitted the government of Pakistan to use such property for 10 years (from 1947 to 1957), but the Foreign Office had used the space from 1947 to 1962 and thereafter an intelligence agency had trespassed into the said properties without any permission from the appellant party.

It further argued that after the death of her father, the princess was his only legal heir who was a citizen of Pakistan and legally entitled to such properties. She approached successive presidents of Pakistan in this regard and the government carried out an inquiry and confirmed that the title of the late Nawab was clean and clear and he was the sole owner of the property.

No sale money, no compensation

The appeal further stated that the late Nawab at no time received any compensation or sale money in respect of these properties and he had never sold the property to anyone including the government of Pakistan.

In 1992, the then prime minister had sought advice of the attorney general on the issue of ownership of such properties and latter categorically said that it was an admitted fact that Princess Abida Sultaan, being sole heir of late Nawab in Pakistan, can claim possession of the property and thereafter the PM ordered the release of property to the appellant, it maintained.

Thereafter, the appellant had reluctantly agreed to take over the possession of survey No 25 (Bhopal House) in May 1993, making it clear that soon thereafter she be handed over the possession of property located in survey No26 as well.

The appeal further said that since 1993 the appellant continued to enjoy peaceful possession of survey No25 while survey No26 was still remained in the possession of the intelligence agency.

The appellant pleaded to set aside the impugned judgement of the single bench, restrain the respondents from interfering with the possession of survey No25 (Bhopal House) in future and sought restoration of possession of property to appellant in survey No26.

Advocate Pooja Kalpana, who is currently representing the appellant in SHC, told Dawn that Bhopal House was in the possession of the appellant while the adjacent property was still under the use of the intelligence agency.

Published in Dawn, January 19th, 2022