LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has dismissed hundreds of writ petitions filed by residents of areas falling under cantonment boards, who had challenged the imposition of property tax as unconstitutional.
The LHC declared that Section 3(1)(a) of the Cantonments (Urban Immovable Property Tax and Entertainments Duty) Order, 1979 is valid, constitutional, and intra vires the Constitution.
The court observed that no constitutional infirmity or illegality could be found in the impugned actions. As a result, all the petitions, being without merit, were dismissed.
The primary—and in fact, the only—substantial argument raised by the petitioners challenged the validity of Section 3 of President’s Order No. 13 of 1979. Under this provision, cantonment boards are empowered to levy urban immovable property tax on the annual value of buildings and land within their jurisdictions, in line with the Cantonments Act, 1924. The petitioners argued that this authority is constitutionally impermissible and should be struck down.
The LHC noted that the constitutional validity and continued enforceability of President’s Order No. 13 of 1979 have been upheld by superior courts. It further observed that legislative actions by the Province of Sindh, including instances where the order was expressly repealed when deemed necessary, reflect acknowledgment that the law remains effective unless specifically amended or repealed.
The court also reiterated the settled constitutional principle that where the Constitution itself validates and protects a law through a saving clause, its continued operation cannot be negated merely by changes in legislative authority or redistribution of legislative powers. Constitutional validation operates independently of legislative lists and remains effective until explicitly overridden by legislation.
In light of Articles 270-A and 270-AA, the statutory framework of the Cantonments Act, 1924, and consistent rulings of superior courts, the LHC concluded that President’s Order No. 13 of 1979 continues to enjoy full constitutional protection.
