LAHORE, April 12: Advocate M.D. Tahir on Wednesday submitted in his rejoinder to the Lahore High Court that his writ petition through which he had challenged the allotment of land to army officers in Cholistan about four years ago was not directed against the Pakistan Army as a national institution but questioned the validity of the allotment.
The rejoinder was submitted by the lawyer-petitioner in response to the reply through which the General Headquarters had stated that the writ petition was not maintainable, as the land allotment was part of the service matter of the armed forces’ officers and the high court had no jurisdiction over such matters.
The GHQ, in its reply last year, submitted that the allotment of the land in Cholistan could not be questioned in any court of law as no court was empowered to consider service matters which enjoyed immunity from a legal question under the Army Act.
The GHQ also cited article 199 (3) (1) of the constitution which, it contended, gave immunity to members of the armed forces in their actions and orders as part of their service matters.
Justice Syed Zahid Husain adjourned with date in office the hearing of the writ petition.
Advocate M.D. Tahir, in his rejoinder, submitted that the land allotment was not a service matter as stipulated in the Army Act and the high court was competent to exercise its jurisdiction in adjudicating such issues.
The lawyer-petitioner submitted that the allotment of state land in Cholistan to senior officers of the armed forces was a private affair and court was empowered under article 199 of the constitution to take up such matters.
In 2002, he had challenged the land allotment to the officers, including President Gen Pervez Musharraf and Governor Khalid Maqbool who, the petitioner contended, were given land in Cholistan by the Punjab Board of Revenue at a rate of Rs380 per acre.
The BoR also stated in its reply that the army officers were allotted lands in many other parts of the province at more or less the similar price. It said such allotments were usual and the practice was going on for decades as part of the service matters of the officers and personnel of the armed forces. —Correspondent
