MULTAN, Dec 16: Government officials are reluctant to appear in the Supreme Court in a case involving state land worth around Rs45 million reserved for construction of children and ladies' park.
The fate of Faridabad Park land is shrouded in mystery due to alleged involvement of two provincial ministers, one from Multan and the other from Faisalabad, who have reportedly asked the officials concerned to play it cool.
As per revenue record of 1966-67, 323 kanals and 17 marlas land bearing khasra No 334 was under the occupation of Municipal Corporation Multan (MCM). The land was used as a water pond to store waste water of 70 areas of the city.
After the introduction of the sewerage system in 1966, the area people demanded that the pond land be converted into a public park.
A pilot project for the beautification of the city was prepared at the cost of Rs8 billion and was announced by then Punjab governor Makhdoom Sajjad Husain Qureshi on June 24, 1988, making the construction of the park as part of the project.
On Oct 22, 1988, the Multan Development Authority (MDA) approved tender No 4158 for the construction of the park costing Rs648,323 and issued directions to the contractor to complete the park till Feb 18, 1989. The construction was completed within due time.
On May 4, 1989, the MDA estate management director wrote a letter (No 563/CLA/EM/MDA) to the chief engineer, stating that the MDA director general had desired that the private area belonging to Messrs Haq Nawaz and Haji Shaukat Ali may be exempted from being part of the park as mutation was presented to the director general according to which the total area of Khasra No 334/1 was 333 kanals and 17 marlas (while as per revenue record of 1966-67 the total area was 323 kanals and 17 marlas.
In the mutation, Shaukat claimed that he had purchased 11 marlas from Muhammad Sharif (national identity card No 323-34-094590) who was allotted this land on May 19, 1985, through transfer order No 41169.
When the people of Faridabad became aware of Shaukat's claim, one of them, Muhammad Younas, wrote to the director general of registration for the verification of identity card.
On Aug 21, 1989, the director-general of registration replied, stating that no one had been issued identity card No 323-34-094590 by the district registration office, Multan.
On September 17, 1989, the director-general of registration, through deputy director Muhammad Ashraf Bhatti, wrote a letter to the director-general of FIA to investigate the matter as the card was not issued by the registration office.
On Dec 3, 1989, Sharif filed a writ petition (No. 2498/89) in the Lahore High Court's Multan Bench, stating that the FIA officials were harassing him; however the court dismissed the petition on Feb 19, 1990.
In the meantime, Shaukat submitted two applications to the MDA, one on April 2, 1990, and the other on Jan 19, 1991, claiming that he was the owner of the land in response to which the MDA through letter (No. 6870/CLA/LM/MDA) stated that the authority had developed the area as park on the request of MCM, which had provided this area to the MDA and after the development, the park was to be maintained by the MCM. “Therefore, you can submit your claim to MCM,” the MDA suggested to the applicant.
Shuakat wrote to the MCM that he was the owner of the land but after looking into the matter, the MCM found the claim false.
Shaukat filed a petition (No 1529/1991) against the MCM mayor, MDA director-general, MDA land management director, Multan SSP and Bohar Gate SHO for harassing him, but it was dismissed on April 25, 1992 for non-prosecution.
On the written complaint of Mian Muhammad Baqir, a resident of the area, additional deputy commissioner general (ADCG), who was also the deputy settlement commissioner, ordered on Jan 26, 1992 verification of documents presented by Shaukat and Sharif, saying that he was competent to entertain the application while placing reliance on a Supreme Court verdict reported as 1987 SCMR 263.
In his inquiry report on Feb 4, 1992, settlement branch in-charge Aftab Ahmed declared the deed of plot, permanent transfer order and kitab moawza (No M&CI 51877/226761) “bogus” and observed that the property file was also not present in the revenue record while all the signatures and forms were also fake.
The inquiry officer lodged an FIR (No. 71/92) under Section 420/467 and 468/471 with Chehliyak Police Station against Sharif and officials concerned.
Sharif filed a petition (No 663/1992) in LHC's Multan Bench, demanding cancellation of the FIR but the petition was dismissed by Justice Fazal Karim on March 3, 1992 and against that order Sharif filed an inter-court appeal (ICA) that was also dismissed on Oct 24, 1992.
In the meantime, on March 17, 1992, the ADCG ordered the counsel of settlement department to check either the department was party in the case filed by Sharif on Feb 28, 1992, in a civil court against the MCM, MDA, ADCG and provincial government through district collector that he was the owner of the land. However, this case was also dismissed on Oct 24, 1994.
Shaukat and his sons also moved the LHC by filing writ (No 16-R) on March 30, 1992, challenging the jurisdiction of the ADCG to entertain Baqir's application.
Giving decision in favour of the petitioner, Justice Syed Zahid Hussain, as he then was, stated that assumption of jurisdiction by the ADCG on an application filed by Baqir, long after the repeal of evacuee laws, was illegal. Accordingly, the entire proceedings were declared to be without lawful authority and were quashed. Two different ICAs were filed by the ADCG and Baqir, respectively, against that decision.
Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jilani and Justice Mian Muhammad Najamuz Zaman ordered the ADCG to submit a comprehensive report in the court. The ADCG informed the court that no file pertaining to issuance of an order dated Dec 26, 1973 purported to have been passed by the deputy settlement commissioner existed and all the documents appended with the petition as annexure “A” to “E” were not part of the record of settlement department, rather these documents were fictitious, forged and fabricated.
On Feb 24, 2005, Justice Maulvi Anwarul Haq and Justice Furrukh Latif directed a member of the Punjab Board of Revenue (BoR) to summon the parties and determine as to whether or not that transfer order was in fact issued while allowing both the ICAs.Despite the obvious directions of the LHC, the BoR member did not take any action. Baqir submitted an application to the BoR member on March 22, 2005, demanding issuance of a declaration that the documents were forged. Instead of taking any action, BoR member Aftab Ali Manika issued a stay order on Sept 1, 2007 in favour of Shaukat, who submitted an application, claiming himself the owner of the land after district government advertised tender for the construction of Faridabad Children and Ladies Park.
However, the member recalled the stay order after hearing both the parties on June 24, 2008. The stay order was once again issued on July 1, 2008, and Aug 26, 2008, was fixed next date of hearing at Multan. But, on July 21, 2008, Baqir was informed that the hearing date and venue had been changed and now the case would be heard on Aug 12, 2008, in Lahore.
BoR member Manika kept adjourning the case for one date after the other until Baqir requested the senior BoR member on May 25, 2010, to transfer his case to any other member. The senior BoR member sent the case to the provincial chief settlement commissioner, who recalled the stay order and fixed June 8 as next date of hearing.
But, the stay order was once again issued only two days after on May 27, on the ground that the other party had moved the Supreme Court. That party had also presented a copy of the leave grant order of the apex court.
On Nov 3, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the ADCG, exercising the powers of deputy settlement commissioner Multan to appear in the case filed by Shaukat Ali and others within 15 days either in person or through an advocate.
The notice was received by the staff of DO (R) (Urban); however, neither any government official nor any advocate appeared before the court or filed their power of attorney till the filing of this report.
Baqir alleged that two provincial ministers were supporting the occupants and they were pressurising officials into avoid pursuing the case. He said that if no official would appear before the court, it would favour the rival party.
He said the Supreme Court did not issue any stay order regarding the implementation of the LHC verdict and the officials concerned were committing contempt of court by not acting upon the court verdict.
He said the disputed land was commercial and its current value was not less than Rs45 million.
DO (R) Mudassir Riaz said that earlier the powers of the ADCG were given to the DORs but, in 2003, these powers were taken back and now the chief settlement commissioner had these powers. He said that the report had been sent to the office of chief settlement commissioner and his (DO's) office was not responsible for not appearing in the court.
Chief Settlement Commissioner Dr Nazeer Saeed said that he had ordered the officials concerned to look into the matter. He said that his department would pursue the case.