ISLAMABAD: A five-member bench of the Supreme Court was taken aback on Wednesday when two different versions of the same certified order, from the same bench, were presented before it.

The orders related to the allotment of a piece of land to the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Air Headquarters in Karachi.

The confusion prompted Justice Nasirul Mulk to summon the attested orders from the Supreme Court registry in Karachi to ascertain which of the orders was the real copy.

The Supreme Court had taken up a review petition moved on behalf of the ISI director general, who was represented by Raja Muhammad Irshad. Deputy Attorney General Sohail Mehmood represented the federal government.

Original order restrained revenue dept from leasing state land

The matter deals with the allotment of 10 acres of land for the development of a housing facility for ISI employees, as well as the allocation of 350 acres for the Pakistan Air Force (PAF).

The summary for the allotment of the land was approved by the Sindh chief minister but the Land Utilisation Department of the Sindh Board of Revenue blocked the allotment in view of Nov 28, 2012 judgment of the Supreme Court, regarding the law and order situation in Karachi.

The order sought to restrain the Sindh revenue department from mutation, allotment, transfer or conversion of any state land and stopped immediately the conversion of a lease for 30 years or any term up to 99 years, because state land was being sold at throwaway prices, which the law does not permit.

It also ordered that the conversion or mutation of the state land in the record of rights would be deemed null and void and in such cases, the deputy commissioner or DCO of the relevant district would be liable for contempt proceedings.

Consequently, a civil miscellaneous application was moved on behalf of the ISI director general before the Supreme Court, seeking an order directing the Sindh Board of Revenue to issue the allotment of the land. The request aimed at accommodating the agency’s employees, who were said to be facing a lack of accommodation.

The application was put up before another bench of the Supreme Court, which clarified the situation through the Nov 28, 2013 order, explaining that the restraining order will be applicable to the extent of state land only and as far as state property – which is required for use of the state itself – the revenue department will be free to enter the transaction or mutation.

Still aggrieved with the decision of the apex court, the ISI filed a review petition against the Nov 28, 2013 order of the Supreme Court.

But the situation became confusing when, during proceedings on Wednesday, Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, pointed to an anomaly by highlighting that there were two orders of the same date. In one order it was stated that the revenue department would be free to allow the mutation of the state property for the purposes of the utilisation of the state itself whereas the other order mentioned the word ‘private property’ in place of ‘state land’.

But Justice Jamali recalled that the restraining order contained no ambiguity, since it applied only to state lands.

At this point, Justice Nasirul Mulk expressed his surprise that two different certified copies of the same order were available with the court and observed that the court needed to go through the entire record to ascertain the tenor of the actual order and to determine whether the mention of private property was a typographical mistake or something else. He said that the court needed to clarify which order was real, otherwise this could affect other transactions too.

Published in Dawn, June 26th, 2014