Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Abid Aziz Sheikh), officially reported as 2026 LHC 4137. In this matter between Nishat Hotels & Properties Limited etc and Province of Punjab etc, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.

Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

COURT: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Abid Aziz Sheikh) DECISION DATE: 17-06-2026 TAGLINE: The validating amendments to the Punjab Revenue Authority Act, 2012 (PRA Act), introduced through the Punjab Revenue Authority (Amendment) Act, 2016 which came into force on 06.02.2016 with retrospective effect from 01.07.2012, and the Punjab Revenue Authority (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 dated 06.09.2016, are not only within the legislative competence of the Provincial Legislature but have also validly and effectively cured the defects identified in the case of "Institute of Architects, Pakistan (Lahore Chapter) V. Province of Punjab and others" (PLD 2016 Lahore 321). CASE DETAILS: Tax (Writ) 48992/19 ============================================================ Stereo.HCJDA.38 JUDGMENT SHEET IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Intra-Court Appeal No.48992/2019

Nishat Hotel and Properties Ltd. etc. Vs. Province of Punjab etc.

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing 17.06.2026. Appellants by M/s Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui, Uzair Karamat Bhandari, Ali Uzair Bhandari, Shehryar Kasuri, Raza Imtiaz Siddiqui, Syed Fazil Hassan, Imran Iqbal, Ahmad Abdul Rehman, Junaid Bin Naeem, Ali Umrao, M. Abdullah Arif, Muhammad Zain Sultan Chattha, Waseem Ahmad Malik, Haris Azmat, Shehzad A. Elahi, Salman Zaheer Khan, Muhammad Mussadiq Islam, Khawaja Omer Ghias, Muhammad Yahya, Babar Sultan, Syed Naveed Amjad Andrabi, Usman Shaukat, Khurram Saleem, Muhammad Humzah, Waleed Khalid, Muhammad Ajmal Khan, Muhammad Nadeem Sheikh, Irfan Noor Gondal, Saad Awais, Muhammad Saleem Ch., Imran Anjum Alvi, Mustafa Kamal, Rana Muhammad Afzal, Muhammad Yousaf Ch., Malik Kashif Rafiq Rajwana, Barrister Haroon Dugal, Rashid Mushtaq, Waheed Alam, Waqas Ajwad, Khubaib Ahmad, Ghulam Akbar Khosa, Rabeel Safdar, Zaheer Abbas Cheema, Ahmad Awais, Waqas Qadeer Shaikh, Hasham Maqsood, Muhammad Baqir Hussain, Sardar Muhammad Ali, Mian Muhammad Tariq Hassan, Ammar Waseem , Muhammad Shafay Ali Khan, Ali Sibtain Fazli, Hasham Ahmad Khan, Maria Farooq, H.M. Majid Siddiqi, Farid Adil, Sikandar Javed , Muhammad Raza Qureshi, Abdul Waheed, Khalil Ur Rehman, Zunaira Tahir, Saif -ur-Rehman, Zain -ul-Abidin, Muhammad Shabbir Hussain, Muhammad Azam Zafar, Muhammad Iqbal Hashmi, Malik Bashir Ahmad Khalid, Khurram Shahzad Chughtai, Muhammad Umer Riaz, Shahjahan Khan, Abad- Ur-Rehman, Tariq Mahmood, Habib Ur Rehman, ICA No.48992of 2019 -2-

Farhan Shahzad, Zohaib Ali Sidhu, Muhammad Taimoor Hassan, Ch. A.D. Bhatti, Malik Faisal Khalid, Dr. Ilyas Zafar, Muhammad Ahsan Virk, Muhammad Naeem Munawar, Syed Zia Haider Rizvi, Khawaja Aizaz Ahsan, Mansoor Usman Awan, Shahbaz Butt, Ibrahim Hassan, Asif Ali, Muhammad Younas Khalid, Tahir Mahmood Sandhu, Muhammad Saeed Tahir Sulehri, Mian Asif Arshad, Mirza Anwar Ul Haq, Ahtisham - Ud-Din Khan, Muhammad Y aseen Qadri, Muhammad Noman Sarwar, Muhammad Zeeshan, Syed Shafique Hussain Shah, Majid Jahangir Chohan, Muhammad Shoaib Rashid, Hameed Bukhsh Butt, Shariq Ahmad, Haris Irfan, Umair Ahmad, Fatima Naeem Qureshi, Azhar Ali Deyal, Mian Muhammad Ahmad Majeed, Muhammad Shoaib Ahmed, Rashid Khan, Zaheer Ahmad C h., Muhammad Shaban, Muhammad Hamza Habib, Muhammad Zain Shabbir, Shoaib Ilyas, Aryan Ahmad, Rana Faisal, and Kiran Shareef, Advocates. Respondents by M/s Sajid Ijaz Hotiana, Waqas Ahmad Mir, Asma Hamid, Hassan Kamran Bashir, Sikander Ali, Tanzil-ur-Rehman Hotiana, Ali Hamza, Hammad Hussain, Saif Ullah Khalid, Haider Nazir Chattha, Abdul Rehman Malik, Mustafa Khalid, Faisal Khalid, Zafar Zulqarnain Sahi, Muzaffar Islam, Faiza Rafique, Dilnawaz Ahmad Cheema, Barrister Ahmed Pervaiz, Barrister Ahad Asif Ali, Foziya Bukhsh, Ghazanfar Farrukh, Sami Ullah, Ch. Muhammad Yasin Zahid, Jahanzeb Inam, Ahmad Jamal , Samra Malik, Hamza Shahid Buttar, Javed Athar, Shahzad Ahmad Cheema, Farooq Minhas, Farrukh Ilyas Cheema, Muhammad Nawaz Amin, Malik Abdullah Raza, Usman Azam Gondal, Saoo d Ur Rehman, Ch. Nusrat Javed Bajwa, Riaz Ahmad Kharal, Imran Rasool, Ch. Muhammad Imtiaz Elahi, M. Ashraf Nawaz Cheema, Malik Abdullah Raza, Muhammad Bilal Ramzan, Qasim Mustafa, Barrister Syed Sajjad Haider Rizvi, Muzaffar Ali, Barrister Muhammad Hamza Akhtar, Barrister Syed Hussain Abbas, Barrister Muhammad Nauman Khan, Barrister Usman Malik, ICA No.48992of 2019 -3-

Muhammad Areeb Khan , Javed Ahmad Khan, Haroon Muzaffar Hashmi, Irfan Dawood, Qari Zuhaib-ur-Rehman Zubairi, Arslan Rasheed and Zulfiqar Ali Shah, Advocates. Mr. Sohail Zafar, Director (Legal), PRA. Ms. Deeba Tasn im Anwar, Assistant Attorney - General for Pakistan. M/s Barrister Zargham Lukhesar, Omer Farooq Khan, Imran Khan, Muhammad Awais Arshad, Assistant Advocate s-General Punjab and Dr. Yaser Aman Khan, Addl. Advocate -General, Punjab.

ABID AZIZ SHEIKH, J. These are the detailed reasons of our short orders of even dated 17.06.2026, through which we have dismissed the Intra Court Appeals, as enumerated in 'Appendix- A' annexed herewith. 2. This consolidated judgment shall also decide the connected ICAs, as all these Appeals emanate from and impugn the same consolidated judgment dated 19.07.2019 in Writ Petition No.23657 of 2016 rendered by the learned Single Judge in Chamber of this Court (hereinafter referred to as the " impugned judgment "), reported as " Nishat Hotel and Properties Limited and others V. Province of Punjab and others " (PLD 2019 Lahore 729 ), and the issues involved therein are identical. COMMON FACTS OF THE CASES 3. The relevant common facts giving rise to the instant Appeals are that the establishment and composition of the Punjab Revenue Authority ( hereinafter referred to as "PRA or Authority") under the Punjab Revenue Authority Act, 2012 (" PRA Act") had earlier been assailed in a prior round of litigation. The learned Single Judge in Chamber of this Court , vide judgment dated 25.01.2016, reported as " Institute of Architects, Pakistan (Lahore Chapter) V. Province of Punjab and others " ( PLD 2016 Lahore 321 ) [hereinafter referred to as "case of Institute of Architects (supra)"], declared that the Authority had neither been validly established in terms of Section 3(1) of the PRA Act nor lawfully constituted, and that the appointments of the Chairperson and its Members had been ICA No.48992of 2019 -4-

made in violation of the PRA Act; hence, all actions, decisions, and orders passed by PRA, including the rules framed thereunder, were declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It was further held therein that all the appointments of the officers purportedly made under Section 39 of the Punjab Sales Tax on Services Act, 2012 (" PSTS Act ") stood vitiated. However, it was expressly observed that there existed no legal impediment preventing the Government from establishing and constituting the Authority afresh in accordance with Section 3 of the PRA Act and in conformity with the principles laid down in that judgment. The aforesaid judgment was subsequently upheld by Division B ench of this Court as well as by the Supreme Court , and thus attained finality. Prior to the pronouncement of judgment in the case of Institute of Architects (supra), the Province of Punjab promulgated the Punjab Revenue Authority (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 (the "Ordinance") on 22.10.2015 to cure the identified defects , however, the said O rdinance lapsed by efflux of time . Thereafter, similar curative measures/amendments were enacted through the Punjab Revenue Authority (Amendment) Act, 2016 ("First Amendment Act "), which came into force on 06.02.2016 with retrospective effect from 01.07.2012, whereby clause (j) in Section 2 of the PRA Act was substituted and clauses (a) and (b) in Section 36, along with sub-section (4) of Section 5 , were inserted in to the PRA Act ; subsequently, further amendments were introduced through the Punjab Revenue Authority (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 ("Second Amendment Act ") dated 06.09.2016, whereby clause (c) in Section 36 of the PRA Act was inserted (both the amendments made through the First Amendment Act and Second Amendment Act shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as "validating amendments "). Being aggrieved of the validating amendments, the appellants instituted Constitutional Petitions before this Court, challenging the vires thereof, inter alia , on the touchstone of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("Constitution"), which were decided through the impugned ICA No.48992of 2019 -5-

1973 ("Constitution"), which were decided through the impugned judgment, whereby Section 5(4) of the PRA Act was declared ultra vires the Constitution, while clauses (a) and (b) of Section 36 the PRA Act were held to have been validly enacted within the legislative competence of the Provincial L egislature and not offending any constitutional mandate . Admittedly, neither t he respondent-department nor the Province of Punjab assailed the said judgment to the extent it operated against them ; however, the private assessees, being dissatisfied with the findings adverse to their interests, have preferred these Intra Court Appeals. ARGUMENTS BY THE PARTIES 4. Mr. Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui, l earned counsel for appellants while advancing arguments contends that the foundational defects in the establishment and constitution of the Authority, as identified in the case of Institute of Architects, have not been effectively cured through the validating amendments. He explains that under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 36 of the PRA Act, only the collection of taxes has been retrospectively validated, whereas no corresponding validation has been extended to the actions undertaken by the Authority or the rules framed thereunder, thereby leaving a substantial category of acts outside the protective ambit of the statute. Elaborating further, he submits that clause (b) of Section 36 of the PRA Act merely provides a limited deeming fiction whereby actions taken by the Chairperson till the establishment of the Authority under Section 3 of the PRA Act shall be treated as actions taken by the Authority; however, such deeming provision is inherently circumscribed by temporal limitations. Learned counsel contends that b y virtue of Second Amendment Act dated 06.09.2016, clause (c) was inserted in Section 36 of the PRA Act, whereby the Authority is deemed to have been established ; consequently, from the said date onwards, the Authority stood legally established with effect from 01.07.2012 , and the Chairperson could not , in law, continue to exercise powers independently under clause (b) of Section 36 of the PRA Act. He ICA No.48992of 2019 -6-

submits that upon such deemed establishment, the Authority was required to be duly and validly constituted in strict conformity with Section 3(4) of the PRA Act, which mandates the appointment of a chairperson and not less than four members; h owever, the constitution of the Authority was defective, as admittedly no such members were appointed during the period from 01.07.2012 till 06.09.2016 (the date from which the Second Amendment Act became effective) and even after the said date till 01.11.2018 (the date from which the Punjab Finance Act , 2018 become effective through which Section 3(4) of the PRA Act was amended). Submits that a lthough Section 3(4) of the PRA Act was amended on 01.11.2018, dispensing with the requirement of a minimum number of members, the said amendment operates prospectively and does not cure the legal infirmities that persisted during the above mentioned intervening period; hence, while the Authority may be deemed to have been established during the aforesaid timeframe, it cannot be regarded as having been validly constituted in the eyes of law, with the inevitable consequences that all actions taken during such period were without lawful authority and, therefore, devoid of legal effect and protection . He argued that the saving clause embodied in Section 8 of the PRA Act does not advance the case of the respondents, as protection against invalidation of proceedings on account of any vacancy or defect in constitution of the Authority presupposes the lawful establishment and existence of a duly constituted body . Learned counsel submits that in the absence of such lawful constitution , the said provision cannot be invoked to cure defects of a foundational character or to legitimate actions taken by an entity that lacked legal competence ab initio. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on "Hamid Mir and another V. Federation of Pakistan and others " (PLD 2013 SC 244 ) as well as Para 30 of the judgment rendered in case of Institute of Architects (supra) and emphasizes that it is a settled principle that acts performed by an Authority lacking lawful constitution are coram non judice and cannot be retrospectively validated through ICA No.48992of 2019 -7-

curative, or amendatory legislation unless such validation is explicit, comprehensive, and unambiguous in its terms. It is thus urged that, in the absence of an express legislative mandate validating the impugned actions, the same remain legally unsustainable. Learned counsel submits that there are four major grounds of attack: (i) that notwithstanding the so-called validating amendments introduced from the year 2012 till 2022, the Authority was never constituted in accordance with the mandatory requirements of Section 3 of the PRA Act; therefore, any and all actions, proceedings, or measures purportedly taken by the Authority lack lawful jurisdiction, and are not sustainable ; (ii) t hat Section 5(4) of the PRA Act, as initially introduced through the Ordinance on 22.10.2025 and subsequently affirmed by the First Amendment Act dated 06.02.2016, expressly provides that , until the Authority is constituted, the Chairperson shall exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Authority, according to the learned counsel, the very incorporation of this provision constitutes a clear legislative acknowledgment that , at the relevant time, the Authority had not been duly constituted in accordance with law . It is further argued that Section 5(4) of the PRA Act has already been struck down by this Court through the impugned judgment, and no appeal thereagainst was preferred by the Department ; hence, any subsequent curative or validating amendments cannot, in law, cure or retrospectively legitimize the defects already identified by this Court, particularly in view of the settled principles governing retrospective validation and vested rights, as elucidated by the Supreme Court in the case of Institute of Architects (supra); (iii) that the so-called validating amendments , in pith and substance, amount to a legislative judgment rather than a valid exercise of the legislative power , being merely declaratory in nature and have ostensibly been enacted with a view to override and nullifying the binding judicial pronouncements . It is contended that s uch an exercise falls beyond the legislative competence of the Provincial Legislature, as the legislature cannot directly annul or set at naught ICA No.48992of 2019 -8-

the judicial decisions without first curing the foundational legal defects or removing the basis upon which such judgments were rendered; therefore, the validating amendments are liable to be declared unconstitutional, being violative of the settled principles governing retrospect ive and declaratory legislation; (iv) t hat the Provincial Legislature lacks the requisite constitutional competence to enact curative or validating legislation , particularly through the device of legal fiction with retrospective effect , in a manner that impairs or defeats vested rights and nullifies binding judicial pronouncements, as the legislative power, i f at all exercisable, is circumscribed by constitutional limitations and is primarily vested in Parliament subject to strict scrutiny on the touchstone of fundamental rights and the doctrine of separation of powers. Even otherwise, the validating amendments do not conform to the settled principles governing valid retrospective legislation , inasmuch as they neither remove or cure the legal defect s or the basis upon which the earlier judgments were rendered, nor do they validly and expressly validate the past actions in accordance with constitutional recognized modalities; therefore, the validating amendments are liable to be declared ultra vires the Constitution, being an impermissible attempt to overreach judicial determinations. Learned counsel for the appellants further contends that prior to the amendment introduced in November, 2018, Section 3(4) of the PRA Act envisaged that the Authority shall consist of a Chairperson and four members, to be appointed by the Government on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the Rules, or, until so prescribed, as may be determined by the Government. It is submitted that the Rules were admittedly framed on 29.02.2016 ; therefore, any appointments made prior thereto were void ab initio, having been made without lawful authority and in contravention of the statutory scheme . Elaborating his submissions, learned counsel argues that although , in the absence of Rules, the Government could determine the terms and conditions of appointment, the expression " Government" has been authoritatively interpreted by ICA No.48992of 2019 -9-

the Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of "Messrs Mustafa Impex, Karachi and others V. The Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and others " (PLD 2016 Supreme Court 808) to mean the Federal Cabinet/Provincial Cabinet, as the case may be, a nd not an individual functionary or department. He further submits that this position stands fortified by the admission of the respondent-department itself, as reflected in Para 6 of the impugned judgment , wherein it has been acknowledged that the Authority was constituted for the first time vide Notification dated 01.04.2022. According to the learned counsel , such admission unequivocally establishes that, prior thereto, no legally consti tuted Authority existed in the eyes of law ; consequently, all actions purportedly taken by such non -existent or improperly constituted Authority are void, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect . Learned counsel next contends that while it is within the competence of the legislature to enact validating or curative statutes, the legislature cannot, under the guise of such legislation, directly or indirectly set aside or nullify judgment of a superior Court but it may remove the defects or lacunae in the statutory framework, as identified in the judgment, thereby rendering the such judgment ineffective prospectively; however, any attempt to override or defeat a binding judgment without curing the foundational defects would amount to a legislative judgment, which is impermissible under the constitutional scheme. Applying the aforesaid principle, learned counsel submits that , in the present case, the validating amendments neither validly establish nor lawfully constitute the Authority for the relevant period , therefore, the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Institute of Architects (supra) continues to hold the field as binding precedent, and the respondents cannot circumvent its effect through defective retrospective legislation. It is further argued that the law settled in Institute of Architects (supra) has created vested and accrued rights in favour of the appellants, including the declaration that the proceedings and notices issued against them were illegal and ICA No.48992of 2019 -10-

without jurisdiction. He submits that such vested rights cannot be taken away or impaired through the validating amendments , particularly where the underlying defects or illegalities go to the root of jurisdiction. Finally submits that the Provincial Legislature cannot, through defective retrospective and colourable legislation, cure inherent and jurisdictional defects in the PRA Act , especially where such enactment infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed to the appellants under the Constitution, which is liable to be struck down as unconstitutional and of no legal effect. 5. Mr. Uzair Karamat Bhandari , Advocate while appearing on behalf of appellants submits that the defects in the PRA Act, as highlighted in the case of Institute of Architects (supra), are of such a fundamental nature that they neither stand cured nor are capable of being cured through ordinary legislative measures, including subsequent validating amendments. He explains that in judgment , rendered in case Institute of Architects (supra), it was categorically held that the PRA had neither been lawfully established nor validly constituted; and that the appointment of Chairperson was illegal , being neither structured nor supported by duly framed rules, as required under the governing statutory framework. He contends that the Chairperson , acting unilaterally and without lawful authority, proceeded to appoint members of the Authority , which action was likewise declared illegal. There existed no prescribed procedure, rules, or statutory backing for the appointment of members or officers, thereby rendering the entire institutional framework legally infirm . He submits that in consequence of the aforesaid findings, all appointments, rules and acti ons undertaken were declared illegal and without lawful authority. Learned counsel submits that the validating amendments introduced subsequently do not, in law, cure the inherent and foundational defects identified by this Court in the judgment passed in case of Institute of Architects (supra) which was also upheld by the Supreme Court of Pakistan . Further submits that incorporating a validation clause through the First Amendment Act, Section 2(j) of the PRA Act was amended to ICA No.48992of 2019 -11-

provide that an ex-officio member shall be deemed to be a member of the Authority. However, the provision fails to specify as to who shall constitute such an ex-officio member, thereby rendering the said amendment vague, uncertain, and incapable of effective implementation. He lastly argues that in comparable statutory framework, such as the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975, the ex-officio members are expressly identified and designated. He argued that even if the Authority is assumed to have been lawfully established through a legislative validation clause, such validation, by itself, does not ipso facto cure the inherent illegality attached to the acts of its Chairperson, including the appointments, which ha ve already been declared unlawful by this Court in case of Institute of Architects (supra). He contends that under Section 3(6) of the PRA Act, the terms and conditions of the Chairperson and members were mandatorily required either to be prescribed through duly framed rules or to be determined by the Government in accordance with law. Admittedly, neither were any rules framed nor was any lawful determination made by Government; consequently, appointments made in contravention of the statutory framework are void ab initio and offend the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 18 of the Constitution as well as the injunctions embodied in Article 2A of the Constitution ; hence, cannot be cured or legitimized through ordinary legi slation or by recourse to validating amendments . Submits that in any case, the validating amendments only validate the actions of the Chairperson and not any appointments which were declared illegal by this Court (in this regard , at this stage, a pivotal question posed whether the legislature can, through validating amendments , protect the acts of the officials without curing the illegality inherent in their very appointments; to which the learned counsel answers in the negative ). He further submits that Section 8 of the PRA Act is wholly inapplicable in the present circumstances, as the Authority itself was never validly established or constituted in accordance with law. He adds that the rules which had earlier been declared ultra vires and struck down by this Court ICA No.48992of 2019 -12-

cannot be revived or afforded protection under the guise of validating amendments , in the absence of proper re -enactment in conformity with the constitutional requirements. On the question of relief, learned counsel clarifies that the appellants are aggrieved only to the extent of the proceedings initiated by such unlawfully appointed officials, and seek the setting aside of such notices which may be issued afresh but no t seeking any refund, as no assessment orders were passed against the appellants. Lastly, on the aspect of legislative competence, reliance has been placed upon the judgment reported as "Chint Ram Ram Chand & others V. State of Punjab & others" (1996 (2) SCR 283) to contend that although the legislature is competent to validate actions within its legislative domain, such competence does not extend to curing defects arising from…

Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Abid Aziz Sheikh)
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant