PESHAWAR: Court stays action on panel’s decision: Land row between Kurram, Hangu
Bureau Report
PESHAWAR, Aug 8: The Peshawar High Court on Wednesday stayed the implementation of proceedings of a boundary commission constituted by the government for settling a longstanding land dispute between the inhabitants of Kurram agency and the Thal tehsil of Hangu district.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Dost Mohammad Khan and Justice Saleem Khan ordered that the demarcation proceedings be carried out in letter and in spirit and it should not be given practical colour.
The bench was hearing a writ petition filed by Malik Janan and the residents of Lower Kurram which challenged the formation of the boundary commission by the provincial government for demarcating the disputed land between the two groups.
The bench fixed Aug 29 for the next hearing and directed the respondents, including the NWFP home department, the DCO Hangu district and the assistant political agent of Lower Kurram Agency to file their comments in response to the petition.
The inhabitants of Thal disputed the claim and said the disputed village in fact belonged to their tehsil.
Barrister Masood Kausar appeared on behalf of the petitioners and Abdul Lateef Afridi appeared for the inhabitants of Thal. The dispute has been going on since 1961. The petitioner claimed that the disputed village Paloseen was the property of Wazir clan of Kurram Agency. They stated that they had control over the 22000 kanal of lands since 1977-78. They added that the formation of the demarcation commission was illegal
Barrister Kausar claimed that inhabitants of the settled districts had been creating a law and order situation and had blocked the main road on several occasions.
Mr Afridi and additional advocate-general Khushdil pleaded that the petition was not maintainable. They said that earlier some of the petitioners had been arrested by the local administration and they had given undertaking that they would not interfere in the issue after their release.
Mr Kausar said the petitioners had only given undertaking that they would not create a law and order situation but they still had the right to avail of their legal options. He added that by filing the petition they had not violated any agreement. The bench decided to hear the petition on the next date and granted interim relief to the petitioners.
