ISLAMABAD, March 26: The Supreme Court has asked the Punjab government to give 88 kanals to a petitioner within three weeks, otherwise it will take action against the officials for not implementing its decision.

The advocate-general of the Punjab, Shabbar Raza Rizvi, informed the court that the government could not give land to the petitioner in Chak No 224 Faislabad as it was neither an evacuee property nor agriculture land, which could be allotted to refugees under the law.

The Supreme Court bench, headed by Chief Justice Shaikh Riaz Ahmad, observed that it would send the district revenue officer Faislabad to jail for not implementing the court’s order.

The land in question, measuring 88 kanals, was allotted to Yaqoob, a refugee from India, on the basis of his claim in 1953. The government, through an order in 1958, exchanged over 5,000 acres in and around Faislabad, then Lyalpur, with the evacuee property.

The petitioner, Yaqoob, filed a petition with the Lahore High Court in 1991, in which he held that he should be given the land. On the other hand, the provincial government filed an appeal with the Supreme Court on the ground that a refugee could be allotted land which was evacuee and agriculture. The land in question was neither evacuee nor agriculture.

The Punjab government stated that after notification in 1958, the land in question became provincial state land that was meant only for expansion of Faislabad.

The SC, however, held that the petitioner be given alternative land. According to advocate-general Punjab, the alternative land was allotted to the petitioner which he refused to accept and insisted that he be given land in Chak No 224 Faislabad.

Mr Rizvi said land in Chak No 224 could not be given under the law and the apex court’s order was that he should be given alternative land which he was offered. He further stated that the Supreme Court in its separate judgment on the same subject had held that a refugee from India could be given land only from the evacuee property.

The petitioner filed a contempt of court petition through Advocate Azam Rasool, alleging that the revenue officials were deliberately avoiding implementation of the SC’s order.

On the last hearing, the court had expressed its displeasure on the conduct of Sultan Mehmood, the district revenue officer, by observing that he was trying to hoodwink the court.