PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court has ruled that purchase of property already frozen under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, by a third party from an absconding accused would be void and create no title in favour of that purchaser.

A bench comprising Justice Ijaz Anwar and Justice Dr Khurshid Iqbal gave its finding while rejecting plea of a family, challenging cancellation by an accountability court of a sale mutation of a piece of land purchased by it over 15 years ago from an absconding accused after the same was frozen in 2007.

The petition was jointly filed by Mohammad Afzal, his brother Mohammad Sarwar and legal heirs of late Mohammad Aslam, requesting the court to quash the accountability court’s order of Nov 5, 2007, confirming freezing order of National Accountability Bureau (NAB) in respect of land measuring 26 kanals and 11.5 marlas.

They also requested the high court to set aside a judgement of the accountability court of March 31, 2021, in which a sale mutation in their favour of Feb 24, 2010, was ordered to be cancelled being void in terms of Section 23 of NAO.

Rejects plea for quashing land freezing order by accountability court

NAB had alleged that the absconder, Tariq Fawad Malik, and his wife Aisha Malik were charged by it with cheating public at large, while a reference was filed with a accountability court in Peshawar against them in 2009 declaring both proclaimed offenders.

The property of the couple, including the said land located in Haripur, was frozen by NAB director-general in Sept 2007 and that order was confirmed by the accountability court in Nov 2007.

However, NAB claimed that Tariq Fawad had executed a general power of attorney in favour of his sister Dr Anees in Feb 2010, who sold the said land to the petitioners.

The petitioners’ counsel contended that his clients were bonafide purchasers having a fundamental right to acquire property within the meaning of Article 23 and 24 of the Constitution.

He argued that the petitioners had no knowledge of the freezing order as no note of caution was issued to them while purchasing the property in question.

The additional deputy prosecutor general of NAB, Arbab Kaleemullah, argued that fundamental rights of the petitioners were subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law.

He said that the freezing order was in the field at the time of purchase of the property by petitioners, who were supposed to have satisfied themselves about any change on the property.

“It is an admitted fact that the freezing order of the property in question was passed in 2007 earlier than the sale transaction of the petitioner in 2010,” the bench ruled, adding that Section 23 of NAO declared that any transfer or creation of charge on property owned or possessed by an accused person or any one on his behalf, against whom inquiry or investigation had been initiated, should be void.

“Thus, the purchase of the property in question by the petitioners, vide mutation No.1599, attested in the year 2010, is void. Needless to say, the property in question was owned by an accused person in a NAB case, which has been frozen way back in the year 2007, and sold through the accused person’s general attorney who happens to be his sister,” the bench ruled.

The bench ruled that no question of issuance of a notice of caution in respect of such transaction was necessary.

The bench pointed out that Dr Anees, having general power of attorney and the sister of accused, could not be stated to have had no knowledge of the reference against her brother and his wife, the freezing order in respect of the property in question and his hiding out in Dubai in that very case.

“In such circumstances, there arises no question of a separate note of caution simply that the freezing order was not embedded in the revenue record,” the bench observed.

It added that the question of lack of knowledge pleaded by such third party (purchaser), being factual in nature, could not be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction.

The court also referred to the Supreme Court judgement in Asfandyar Wali Khan case regarding NAO, observing that the apex court had ruled that Section 23 of Ordinance and articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution were not in conflict with each other.

Published in Dawn, August 18th, 2025