IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

(Original Constitutional Jurisdiction)

Const. Petition. No.: D - of 2023

Mian Mushtaq Ahmed S/o Mian Muhammad Din

Muslim, Adult, residing at House No.78A/1-A,
2nd Sunset Street, Phase 2 Extension, DHA,
Karachi ………. Petitioner

Versus

1. Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary to

Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Defense,
Pakistan Secretariat No. II, Adamjee Road,
Cantonment, Saddar,
Rawalpindi.

2. Director General, Military Lands & Cantonments,

Ministry of Defense (M.O.D.),
Pakistan Secretariat No. II, Adamjee Road,
Cantonment, Saddar,
Rawalpindi.

3. Defense Housing Authority (D.H.A.) Karachi,

Through the Administrator, D.H.A. Head Office,
2-B East Street, Phase 1, D.H.A.,
Karachi.

4. Cantonment Board Clifton (C.B.C.), through the

Cantonment Executive Officer (CEO), having its office at
CC-38, Street 10, Khayaban-e-Rahat, Phase VI, DHA,
Karachi

5. Province of Sindh
Through its Chief Secretary
Having office at Sindh Secretariat
Karachi

5A. Secretary, Ministry of Excise & Taxation

Government of Sindh
Barrack – 8, Sindh Secretariat
Karachi ………. Respondents

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 199 OF THE CONSTITUTION

OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, 1973

The Petitioner above named respectfully begs to submit as

under:-

1. That the Petitioner (Advocate Supreme Court) is a law

abiding senior citizen of Pakistan and is the owner and resident of
House No.78A/1-A, 2nd Sunset Street, Phase 2 extension, D.H.A.,
Karachi and comes within the jurisdiction of the Respondents
especially the Respondent No.4. The since the year 2001 the
Petitioner has been a resident on the instant property and has
been paying taxes, levy, duties, charges, fee, etc. regularly as and
when demand is made by the Respondent No.3 & 4.

2. That the Respondent No.1 is the Ministry of Defense (M.O.D.)

through its secretary is the executive arm of the Federation
exercising overall administrative / financial powers and control
over military lands and cantonments throughout the country. The
overall administrative and financial authority in relation to all the
cantonments rest with the Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.2
being Director General, Military Lands and Cantonments reports
directly to the Respondent No.1 and is the responsible executive
authority, in all matters concerning the administration and affairs
of cantonments throughout Pakistan. The Respondent No.3 is the
Pakistan Defense Officers Housing Authority, Karachi (D.H.A.),
responsible for the development of the land leased out to it by the
President. The Respondent No.3 was initially established as a
Cooperative Housing Society in the name and style of Pakistan
Defense Officers Cooperative Housing Society Limited and was
registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. However,
later, under the martial law regime of 1977, vide the Presidential
Order No.7 of 1980, the Cooperative Housing Society was dissolved
and a new entity called the Defense Officers Housing Authority was
established and all the assets, liabilities, memberships, funds etc.,
of the Cooperative Housing Society including all the land given for
development to the society were deemed to have devolved upon the
new entity. The Respondent No.4 the Clifton Cantonment Board is
the 'Local Authority' being a creation of the Cantonments Act,
1924. Although the cantonment boards are supposed to be within
the executive domain of the Respondent No.1 & 2, however all the
cantonment boards are independent entities which are governed
and controlled in their affairs by the Cantonments Act of 1924, as
amended from time to time.

3. That for the purpose of present controversy, it would be

appropriate to mention here that Respondent No.3 (D.H.A.,
Karachi) is comprising of almost more than 95% civilian
population. The land in D.H.A., Karachi is admittedly situated in
the province of Sindh. That it is also a matter of record that there
is no military deployment in D.H.A., Karachi, therefore, the
presence as well as the jurisdiction of the C.B.C. is totally illegal
and unconstitutional.

4. That it is an elementary principle of law that the

Cantonment is a place of soldiers and troops, a Military garrison or
camps. Wherever there are armies and fighting troops, these are
kept in exclusive and permanently earmarked separate area of
Cantonments. In the Indo-Pak subcontinent the formation of
Cantonment as military camps dates back to around 200 years.
Originally the Cantonment is an area demarcated by the British
government for the exclusive use of troops. Ordinarily, all lands
within the Cantonment limits vest in the Federal Govt.
Cantonments were primarily formed for the British who did not
want to mix up with the local civil population. The other object was
to create healthy, safe and secure environments for the troops as
such atmosphere was considered extremely essential for the
efficiency of the armed forces. This explains the existence of
cantonments even today. Before 1864, cantonments used to be
administered by the military authorities under various Government
Orders. In 1864, for the first time, an Act was adopted for
improving the administration of the cantonments. A magistrate
was appointed to administer the area. The Act also regulated the
funds granted by Government for the purpose of bettering the
various facilities.

5. That the Cantonments Act, 1924 was the land mark in the
history of cantonments as it brought in its wake some sweeping
changes. However, after lapse of almost 100 years it becomes
redundant, obsolete and is not at all practical view of the
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 as the Cantonment Act, 1924 was
conceived by the previous Crown for their personal need and
requirement at the relevant point of time. The Act introduced the
representative local government system under which elected
representatives of the civil population became members of the
Cantonment Boards. The Boards were created as autonomous
statutory local bodies for providing civic services. The powers and
functions of the Cantonment Board are synonymous to Municipal
Committees in the cities. The civic services. The members
constituting the Board are both officially nominated as well as
elected through a direct vote on the basis of audit franchise.
Officials nominated as members obviously hold the majority and
the Station Commander, who is a senior military officer, is the ex-
officio President of the Board. This is to protect the interest of
troops and ensure their welfare and discipline. Now the current
reality is that Core Commander 5 by virtue of his portfolio is
heading DHAs in Sindh i.e. Karachi and Hyderabad as well as all
Cantonment Boards of Sindh and there is no true representation of
public at large in the Cantonment Board. Therefore, the
applicability of Cantonment Act, 1924 has no positive purpose in
D.H.A. areas which should be excluded from the operation of the
Cantonment Act, 1924.

6. That all cantonment Boards work under the administrative

control of the Respondent No.2, who issues various directives on
important policy matters from time to time and the cantonment
Board comply with the same. All accounts are not properly audited
by the Govt. of Pakistan. The income of D.H.A. as well as C.B.C. is
not properly displayed at the official paper and the Auditor General
of Pakistan from time to time opined in this regard. Besides the
Honorable Supreme Court has also taken a notice that D.H.A.’s are
concealing and hiding their true income.

7. That the scope of function of the Cantonment Boards is

pretty wide like the Municipal Committees and Corporations. The
following are the major functions performed by the Boards:-

"Cleaning of streets, roads and other public places, removal

and disposal of rubbish. Render conservancy services to the Armed
Forces and other Government Departments on contract basis,
lighting streets and public places; supplying water to the civilians
and p[providing medical relief to them; registering births and
deaths, undertaking public vaccination; constructing roads,
streets, drains, foot paths etc, providing and maintaining roadside
plantations and public gardens and parks, regulating and licensing
of trade, maintaining markets, sewer plants, reclaiming unhealthy
localities, assisting primary schools, control and regulation of
obnoxious and dangerous trade, making survey and taking census,
town planning and rent control".
8. That Article 142 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 before
18th Amendment provided that the subjects mentioned in the
Federal Legislative List, contained in the Fourth Schedule, fell
within the exclusive purview of the Federal Legislative List but
whatever is not mentioned in the said Federal Legislative List, fell
within the exclusive powers of the Provincial Legislation. Before
18th Amendment, Entry No.50 to the Federal Legislative List,
permitted tax on the capital value of the assets, not including
taxes on capital gain on immovable property but after 18th
Amendment, it is now taxes on the capital value of the assets,
not including taxes [xxxxx] on immovable property. The
following is comparison of both the entries.

Before 18th Amendment, Entry After 18th Amendment

50 to the Federal Legislative List. taxes on the capital value of
Taxes on the capital value of the the assets, not including
assets, not including taxes on taxes [xxxxx] on immovable
capital gain on immovable property. property.
9. Now no tax, cess, charge, rate tool & fee on immovable
property can be levied by the Cantonment Board because this
entry now has been deleted / amended from the constitution,
hence taxes on immovable property are now ousted from the
jurisdiction of the Cantonment Board being supervised and
controlled by the Federal Govt. Right now after 18th Amendment in
Constitution, this is subject matter of the Provincial Govt.,
therefore, no Cantonment Board in Pakistan, now, has any
entitlement / authority in law to recover any tax on immovable
property.

10. That the original Article 142 and after 18th Amendment in
Constitution is reproduced below;

Original Article 142 After 18th Amendment

Article 142
142. Subject matter of Federal 142. Subject matter of
and Provincial Laws. Subject to Federal and Provincial Laws.
the Constitution. Subject to the Constitution.
(a) [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] (a) [Majlis-e-Shoora
shall have exclusive power to (Parliament)] shall have
make laws with respect to any exclusive power to make laws
matter in the Federal Legislative with respect to any matter in
List; the Federal Legislative List;
(b) [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)], (b) [Majlis-e-Shoora
and a Provincial Assembly also, (Parliament)], and a Provincial
shall have power to make laws Assembly also, shall have
with respect to any matter in the power to make laws with
Concurrent Legislative List; respect to criminal laws,
criminal procedure and
evidence;
Changed
(c) A Provincial Assembly shall, [(c) Subject to paragraph (b), a
and [Majlis-e-Shoora Provincial Assembly shall, and
(Parliament)] shall not, have [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)]
power to make laws with respect shall not, have power to make
to any matter not enumerated in laws with respect to any matter
either the Federal Legislative List not enumerated in the Federal
or the Concurrent Legislative Legislative List]
List; and Changed
(d) [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] (d) [Majlis-e-Shoora
shall have exclusive power to (Parliament)] shall have
make laws with respect to exclusive power to make laws
matters not enumerated in either with respect to all matters
of the Lists for such areas in the pertaining to such areas in the
Federation as are not included in Federation as are not included
any Province. in any Province].
Changed

11. That in terms of Schedule 4 of the Constitution of Pakistan,

Article 70, Sub-article (6) of the Federal Legislative Lists Part I,
Entry No.37 mentions works, lands and building vested in, or in
the possession of Government for the purposes of the Federation
(not being military, naval or air force works), but as regards
property situate in a province, it is always subjected to Provincial
legislation, save in so far as Federal law otherwise provides. Entry
No.50 mentions taxes on the capital value of the assets, not
including taxes on immovable property, as such, the collection of
the property tax and conservancy tax is a constitutional domain of
the province, therefore, every citizen of Pakistan whether living in
Karachi or any cantonment area of Karachi shall be subjected to
the Sindh Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958 and therefore,
the demand of property tax and conservancy tax from the D.H.A.
and its affiliated areas by the C.B.C. is totally illegal, uncalled for
and the petitioner is entitled to its return especially since the 18 th
Amendment of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. It would be
appropriate to mention here that all kinds of tax can only be levied
by the Act of Parliament in terms of Article 77 of the Constitution
of Pakistan, 1973.

12. WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the above, the Petitioner has noted

with some concern that since March, 2022 the media has been
reporting that the Director General, Military Lands & Cantonments
(DG-ML&C) has issued a circular / notification to all the
Cantonment Boards in the country to increase the property and
conservancy taxes, multiple times over and above the existing
rates. Such press / media reports have not been denied by the DG-
MLL&C to this date. The Petitioner believes that in line with the
instructions of the ML&C Directorate, the Cantonment Boards
across Pakistan have launched a campaign of increasing the taxes.
Accordingly, the C.B.C. has also initiated the exercise for
increasing the property and conservancy taxes at the behest of the
DG-ML&C. Since the DG-ML&C does not have any taxing powers
under the Cantonment Act, the proposed increase in taxes by the
C.B.C., at the behest / instructions of DG-ML&C, is not in
accordance with legislative intent and purpose, hence is patently
illegal and not sustainable under any law.

13. That in terms of Section 11 of the Cantonments Act, 1924,

the C.B.C. is a body corporate having an independent Board and
powers to acquire and hold property, enter into contracts in its
own name and sue and be sued in that name. For all intent and
purposes, a Cantonment Board is an independent legal entity that
is only controlled by the Cantonments Act of 1924, whereby every
cantonment board is first required to pass a Resolution
concerning any tax intended to be imposed and then a taxing
proposal is supposed to be framed by the Cantonment Board as
per Section 61 of the Cantonments Act. In the entire
Cantonment Act there is neither any mention of the DG-ML&C nor
have any taxing powers been given to the DG or any other officer of
the ML&C Directorate, in any manner whatsoever. Thus, it is very
clear that in terms of the existing Cantonments Act, 1924
every taxing proposal has to be originate through a
“resolution” of the concerned Cantonment Board which is
then supposed to be “framed as taxing proposal” by the
Cantonment Board, this is then required to go through the
process of public objections. After objections have been filed
and heard, the Board is required to “settle the tax proposal”
and submit the same to the Federal Government for its
approval. The C.B.C. has to appreciate that the Federal
Government mentioned in the Cantonments Act of 1924 does not
mean the DG-ML&C, but the entire Federal Government comprised
of all Federal Ministers and the Prime Minister (the Cabinet) as laid
down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the Mustafa Impex
case (PLD 2016 SC 808) and followed by this Honorable Court in
Karamat Ali case (PLD 2018 Sindh 8). Hence the C.B.C. cannot
enforce any tax proposal unless the same has been imitated,
processed and framed as per the requirements of the Cantonments
Act and then has been cleared by the Federal Cabinet. The
Clearance has to be in terms of the law as laid down by the
Honorable Supreme Court and this High Court in the judgments
referred above.

14. That the impugned letter dated 23.08.2022 has been sent
to All Regional Directors, Military Lands & Cantonment
Department, all PCBs and all CEOs with the heading "development
of fair and uniform house tax parameters and its implementation
on all self occupied residential properties in CBs”.

15. That pursuant to the impugned letter dated 23.08.2022

issued by the Respondent No.2 which was not gazetted as required
under the General Clauses Act, 1956, more particularly in terms of
the Sindh General Clauses Act it has to be gazetted, it was sent to
the C.B.C. who instead of issuing individual notices issued a
public notice in daily DAWN dated 20.10.2022 inviting objections
from the owners of the properties situated in C.B.C. in terms of
Section 66.

16. That the public notice issued by the C.B.C. is highly

defective, misleading and confusing. The said notice has failed to
make a complete disclosure of the essential information as
required to be provided under Section 61 of the Cantonment
Act. Furthermore the said public notice has also not disclosed that
the C.B.C. has decided to change the very basis of the calculation
of Annual Rental Value (A.R.V) by taking DC Value as the cost of
land. The most significant lapse of the C.B.C. has been that the
full Assessment List was not available anywhere, although the
C.B.C. is under a statutory obligation to make available the list to
everyone concerned. Thus, not only the Petitioner but the public at
large has effectively been denied the opportunity to put up a
meaningful and complete challenge to the increase in taxes
contemplated by the C.B.C. Furthermore, the public notice issued
by the C.B.C. is premised on the assumption that everyone has
access and is a reader of daily DAWN, whereas, hardly 10% people
of D.H.A. / C.B.C. may be reading DAWN on a daily basis. In view
of this, the Cantonments Act in Section 68 has required that
individual notices should also be sent, but the C.B.C. has not
issued any individual notices in this regard. Therefore, for the want
of legally valid notices, general and individual both, the C.B.C.
cannot take the initiative to increase taxes any further and the
Petitioner has been rightfully constrained to move this Hon’ble
Court through the instant petition.

17. That the taxing powers of the C.B.C. are not unilateral but
are based upon reciprocal obligations of providing and maintaining
an efficient, functional and operational civic infrastructure and
municipal services. In this regard, the Cantonments Act of 1924
has placed particular statutory obligations upon the C.B.C. in
respect of water supply (through the lines in sufficient quantity
and of drinkable quality), sewerage system, conservancy (inclusive
of solid waste collection & disposal, environment and roads).
However, the delivery of municipal services by the C.B.C. have
never been upto the mark, particularly in the last ten years and at
present, on the ground situation is that most of the main streets
and roads are either completely broken or have pot holes. The
sewerage system is collapsed to a large extent and sewerage is
flowing out on the streets. In addition to the sewerage issues, in
the competent hands of the C.B.C., the garbage collection and
disposal is also in a similar mess. Although life without water is
difficult to sustain and the C.B.C. is under express legal and
constitutional obligation to supply water to each and every resident
as per Orders of this Court but there is hardly any supply of water
through lines and residents are forced to buy water from the
tanker mafia, at exorbitant rates. In brief, the residents although
paying heavy taxes to the C.B.C. are not getting matching
municipal services from the C.B.C. and thus there is a complete
absence of the equity of quid pro quo. Therefore, on the principle of
quid pro quo, the C.B.C. is not entitled, in any manner whatsoever,
to even contemplate any increase in property or the conservancy
taxes.
Copies of the letter dated 23.08.2022, public notice,
objections of the petitioner and his bills are filed as
Annes____

18. That the aforesaid demand in the shape of impugned letter

dated 23.08.2022 is patently illegal and is outside the ambit, scope
and beyond the jurisdiction of the Respondents to tax the
petitioner.

19. That Section 64 of the Act, 1924 is very clear which talk
about the manner in which annual value of the property is to be
determined. Admittedly the said procedure and law was not
followed in the case of petitioner as provided in different sections of
Clifton Cantonment Act, 1924, hence the demand of house tax and
conservancy tax are uncalled for and illegal.

20. That now it is crystal clear that if imposition of tax is

statutory authority of the C.B.C. but its recovery can be affected
only after undertaking the procedure provided in Chapter-V of
Cantonments Act, 1924. The levy & proposal of tax is not authority
of the Executive Officer including any other officials of the Board
but such power lies with the Boards only and the Executive Officer
and other officials of the Board only have to simply comply with
directions decisions of the Board It is undoubtedly proved from the
close examination of sections 66, 67, 68, 71 & 72 of the
Cantonments Act, 1924 that such is a function of the Board and
not the Executive Officer. In section 66, 67, 68 & 72 the word
“shall” has been used, it means that the compliance of these
sections in letter and spirit is mandatory and departure is not
permissible, this is the reasons that Superior Courts in cases
where departure was made and assessment was concluded in
derogation of the provisions of Chapter-V had set aside the same
with direction to carry on such exercise again afresh after
complying with the provisions of Chapter-V of the Cantonments
Act, 1924.

21. That the proposed increase in the property and conservancy

taxes by the C.B.C. essentially constitute a revision f the existing
Assessment List. However, for undertaking the revision of the
existing Assessment List, the C.B.C. has to follow the provisions of
Section 68 of the Cantonments Act that requires, inter alia, that in
addition to the Public Notice, the Board will also give individual
Notices to the owner, lessee or occupier of the property. However,
in the present case neither any individual Notice has been sent to
the Petitioner or to other residents of the C.B.C. The consequence
of the said omission is that most of the owners, lessees or
occupiers of the properties have not been served and informed,
hence, are likely to be condemned unheard. Petitioner considers
that non issuance of individual notices by the C.B.C. is fatal and
has vitiated the whole exercise. Therefore, the C.B.C. cannot
undertake any revision of the existing Assessment List in the
present circumstances when it has failed to issue the mandatory
individual notices.

22. That alternatively if C.B.C. were to take the position that the
proposed increase is not a “revision” of the existing Assessment
List under Section 68 of Cantonments Act but a new list is being
prepared under Section 72 of the Act, therefore Section 68 is not
applicable. However, even in case of the preparation of the new
Assessment List, the C.B.C. is supposed to follow all the provisions
of Sections 66 to 71 of the Cantonments Act.

23. That after a careful reading of the Cantonment Act, 1924 it

has been revealed that as per section 64 of the Cantonments Act,
1924 the C.B.C. is only allowed to assess the A.R.V. of the property
only once i.e. when its construction is completed. That the C.B.C.
after determining the A.R.V. of the property is not allowed re-
determining A.R.V. ever again. Thereafter, C.B.C. is only allowed to
revise the assessment list as per the procedures prescribed in
section 66 to 71 of the Cantonments, Act of 1924.

24. That in summation of the foregoing submissions, it can be

concluded that the whole exercise of the proposed increase in taxes
by the C.B.C. is highly flawed, illegal, irrational, unreasonable and
against the principles of equity. Furthermore, the proposed tax has
been increased at the wrong time. Since the last three years, the
Pakistan economy has been in dire strait and the years 2022 and
2023 has been the worst, however, the C.B.C. has completely
disregarded the economic realities the residents are facing and
instead of providing any relief to its residents, the C.B.C. has
decided to overburden them, which is adding insult to the injury.
The residents of the C.B.C. are already infuriated at the poor state
of the infrastructure, the non-supply of water and persistent
failure of the C.B.C. in delivering municipal services of an
acceptable standard.

25. That it is the Provincial Government which has jurisdiction

to tax the citizens of respective provinces in accordance with law.
The bare perusal of the impugned letter dated 23.08.2022 shows
that there is nothing in it to sustain the demand of house tax and
conservancy tax. Properties belong to the petitioner or to any other
person or authority not stood vested in the Clifton Cantonment
Board.

26. That the Defence Housing Society in Karachi is one of the

largest housing societies in Pakistan. It is inhabited by several lacs
of people. The serving and retired armed personnel who reside in
the aforesaid society constitute a very small percentage of the
above population. It is true that even now the paramount duty of a
Cantonment Board or in other words the very raison d' etre for a
Cantonment Board is the quartering or the requirements in the
vicinity concerning the quartering of regular forces and, therefore,
cannot be equated with a municipal corporation / committee /
council, but since Cantonment Boards have taken upon
themselves the municipal functions in respect of the areas in
which civilians also reside and / or which are mostly populated by
civilians, the law makers provided representation to the civilian
population under section 13-A of the Act so that they may protect
their interests and may have sense of participation in the
discharge of the municipal functions of the boards. The above
provision of the Act is in line with Article 32 of the Constitution of
Pakistan, 1973 which enjoins that the State shall encourage local
govt. institutions composed of elected representatives of the area
concerned.

27. That apart from the above legal position, the petitioner is
subject to hostile discrimination in terms of Article 25 of the
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan from the hands of
respondent No.4 as other areas are not subjected to jurisdiction as
well as taxation of Clifton Cantonment Board but they are subject
to the provincial legislation in terms of the West Pakistan Urban
Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958. The impugned house tax and
conservancy tax is also in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution
of Pakistan, 1973.

28. That the Petitioner has no other efficacious alternate remedy

available to him except to invoke the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court for redressal of his grievance.

29. That the Petitioner craves leave to rely on further /

additional grounds at the time of hearing / arguments.

GROUNDS

A. That the entire scheme of the C.B.C. aimed at increasing

taxes that has commenced from the issuance of the impugned
letter dated 23.08.2022 and Public Notice dated 20.10.2022 is
completely illegal and flawed which deserves judicial scrutiny by
this Honorable Court.

B. That the act of the Respondents to burden the Petitioner and

other residents with increased taxes in a questionable manner has
made it manifestly clear that there is a serious failure on the part
of the Respondent No.1 to 4 to bear in mind public interest, civil
rights of citizens and their constitutional duties. However, their
rather deliberate failure can’t be allowed to become a basis of the
illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, mala-fide, arbitrary, capricious
and discriminatory imposition of additional tax burden,
particularly in the absence and denial of an efficient and fully
functional civic infrastructure and municipal services to the
Petitioner and others.
C. That the acts and omissions of the C.B.C. as described in the
Petition amounts to a deliberate denial of civic infrastructure
facilities and municipal services to the Petitioner, Such conduct of
the C.B.C., on any pretext whatsoever, is arbitrary, whimsical,
capricious and illegal in as much as it fails to comply with the
basic requirements of law.

D. That the Respondents have a constitutional obligation to act

fairly, judiciously, diligently and in accordance with law, whereas,
the Respondents in this case are acting otherwise.

E. That the impugned letter dated 23.08.2022 issued by the

Respondent No.2 and Public Notice dated 20.20.2022 issued by
the Respondent No.4 is not only ultra vires of the Cantonment Act
but is also violative of and in derogation of the fundamental rights
of the Petitioner as guaranteed under the Constitution of Islamic
Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

F. That the Petitioner craves leave of this Honorable Court to

raise further grounds at the time of oral hearing of the case.

PRAYER

In view of the above facts and grounds, it is, therefore,

respectfully, prayed on behalf of the Petitioner that this Honorable
Court may graciously be pleased to;

i) Declare that the impugned letter dated 23.08.2022 issued by

Respondent No.2 to all the Regional Directors, Military Lands &
Cantonment Dept, all PCBs and all CEOs is illegal, unlawful, void
ab initio in view of Entry No.37 and 50 of Part I of the Federal
Legislative List as well as violative of Articles 3, 4, 8, 10A, 19A, 23,
24 and 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan,
1973.

ii) Declare that the imposition of house taxes situated in the

province especially in D.H.A. is the domain of Govt. of Sindh in
terms of Entry No.37 and 50 of the Constitution of Pakistan.
Therefore, the entire demand as well as imposition of taxes for the
purposes of property tax is illegal, void and ab initio.

iii) Declare that the impugned levy and enhancement through

the impugned letter dated 23.8.2022 is void ab initio, violation of
the Pakistan Cantonment Property Rules, 1957 as well as the
Constitution of Pakistan.

iv) Declare that the impugned Public Notice dated 20.10.2022

issued by the Respondent No.4 as well as all actions taken in
pursuance thereof is illegal, void ab initio and against the law.

v) Declare that the revised impugned property tax bills raised

by the Respondent No.4 on the behest of the Respondent No.2 for
the years 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 are illegal, unlawful, void ab
initio and liable to be set aside.

vi) Declare that the demand raised by Respondents No.4 is

violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan.

vii) Declare that only One (1) time in lifetime (i.e. after
completion of the construction of the property) the Respondent
No.4 is allowed to determine the A.R.V. of the property as per
section 64 of the Cantonment Act of 1924 and thereafter have no
power to re-determine the A.R.V. of the property as per section 64
of the Cantonment Act of 1924 and only allowed to revise the
assessment list as per section 68 or amend the assessment list as
per section 71 of the Cantonment Act of 1924.

viii) Declare that the petitioner as well as all residents of D.H.A.

and Cantonment Areas of Karachi shall be subjected to the Sindh
Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958 and the rate made therein.

ix) Declare that since the C.B.C. after collecting the conservancy
charges is not providing the corresponding services of a reasonable
standard therefore, the demand of conservancy tax @ 4% of ARV is
totally illegal and untill the C.B.C. is not providing conservancy
services upto a required standard the conservancy rates be
reduced to 2% of the A.R.V. (A.R.V. to be calculated according to
the rates charged to other residents of Karachi calculated
according to Sindh Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958)
x) Mandatory injunction suspend the operation of the
impugned letter dated 23.08.2022 issued by Respondent No.2 to
all the Regional Directors, Military Lands & Cantonment Dept., all
PCBs and all CEOs and also suspend the operation of the
impugned bills.

xi) Permanent injunction restrain the Respondents, their

servants, agents, employees, assignees or any person acting for
and/or on their behalf from taking any coercive action against the
petitioner pursuant to the impugned letter dated 23.08.2022
issued by Respondent No.2 in any manner whatsoever.

xii) Grant such other / better relief which this Honorable Court
may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case;

xiii) Costs of the petition.