Low Graphics Site
White bar
.: Latest News :. .: News in Pictures :.
Dawn e-paper
Daily SectionMarker

Misc SectionMarker

Weekly SectionMarker

Weekly SectionMarker



Pakistan's Internet Magazine
Herald
Dawn GroupMarker

Archive, Search, Feedback & HelpMarker

Weather

FrontPage National International Local Business KSE Forex Sports Editorial Opinion Letters Features Today's Cartoon TV Guide Cowasjee Ayaz Irfan Hussain Jawed Naqvi Review Dawn Magazine Young World Images Dawn Group Subscription To Advertise

DINA
Previous Story DAWN - the Internet Edition Next Story

February 08, 2007 Thursday Muharram 19, 1428


KARACHI: Contempt plea against BoR member adjourned



By Our Staff Reporter


KARACHI, Feb 7: Justice Gulzar Ahmed of the Sindh High Court has adjourned the hearing of a contempt application against a member of the provincial board of revenue to enable him to file his rejoinder.

Mohammad Khalid Soomro, BoR member for land utilisation, who had a bailable warrant issued against him to ensure his presence, appeared on Wednesday along with Additional Advocate-General M Ahmed Pirzada and sought time for filing his reply.

Adjourning the hearing to February 28, the court told the Additional Advocate-General that he would not be able to represent the alleged contemnor, who should engage a private counsel of his choice. The contempt cases are to be prosecuted by the advocate-general under the rules.

Applicant Mohammad Farooq has stated that he purchased 234 acres of land along the Super Highway near Nooriabad, Jamshoro district, in a public auction ordered by the High Court in 1990. The land belonged to a private company under liquidation.

The BoR member, however, issued a notice to the purchaser recently saying that the land belonged to the provincial government and could not have been sold as company property in litigation.

His counsel, Shaukat Ali Shaikh argued that the notice under Section 164 of the Land Revenue Act could not be issued in respect of land sold under judicial orders.

The provision was meant to cancel wrongful allotment or sale by subordinate staff of the Board of Revenue. By issuing the notice in respect of a court-supervised transaction, the BoR member has committed contempt of court and should be tried for it, he maintained.






Previous Story Top of Page Next Story

Seprater
Contributions
Privacy Policy
© DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2007