19 November 2004	Friday	06 Shawwal 1425

LAHORE, Nov 18: The Supreme Court on Thursday took a serious notice of a government land fraud and refused the Punjab government to withdraw a leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court decision.

Comprising Justice Falaksher and Justice Syed Tasaddaq Husain Jilani, the division bench of the apex court observed that cases of land fraud along the India-Pakistan border seemed to be on the increase as the court had been receiving such complaints. The court also observed that fraud in government lands could only be committed in connivance with senior officers.

The court directed the chief conservator forests, central zone, Lahore, who appeared primarily to withdraw the leave to appeal, to submit a detailed report after in-depth investigation into the fraud.

The court also directed assistant advocate-general Raja Abdur Rehman to submit his report as to whether the Punjab Forest Department had taken any action against diligent officers who were involved in the fraud.

The appeal arose out of a civil suit which a citizen, Warsa Singh of Kalkhanna village, Narowal, had filed with a civil court claiming the ownership of 181 kanals of the forest department in the village bordering India. The civil court decreed the case in the plaintiff's favour after a department official conceded in court that the land stood in his name according to the revenue record.

The decree was maintained by the senior civil judge and the LHC where the department filed appeals against the civil court's decree. The plea taken by the department was that the officer who made a conceding statement in favour of the plaintiff was not competent to make such a statement before the court. The appeals were, however, dismissed by the senior civil judge of Narowal and the LHC.

The department, later, submitted leave to appeal with the Supreme Court which examined the case in a manner as to expose the fraud. The apex court's division bench asked the chief conservator if the department had ever proceeded against the officer who made a conceding statement before the civil court and, if not, why no criminal action was taken.

The Supreme Court also asked the officer if proper revenue record like 'jamabandi' from 1942-43 to 1975-76 and mutation was submitted to any of the appeal courts where the decree was challenged. The officer had no answer to any such inquiry.

At a later stage of the proceedings in leave to appeal, the chief conservator made a request for the withdrawal of the appeal. The court declined the request and directed the officer to hold a complete inquiry into the matter and submit a report.

EARLY HEARING: Barrister Zafarullah Khan has submitted an application to the Supreme Court, requesting it to give an early hearing of the constitutional petition which challenged the government's 'unilateral' amendments to the constitution.

The Watan Party had filed the petition in September 2000 when the government had yet to introduce the LFO, which was later made part of the constitution through the 17th Amendment.

The application submitted that now when the constitution had been damaged, the National Assembly had adopted an act to allow the president to retain his uniform and the country stood at the lowest politically and economically, an early hearing of the petition and correct interpretation of the present character of the constitution had assumed importance.