Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ALJEHAD TRUST and others VS Respondent: Mian MANZOOR AHMAD WATTOO and 7 others
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Abdul Majeed Tiwana Title: ALJEHAD TRUST and others vs Mian MANZOOR AHMAD WATTOO and 7 others Case No.: Writ Petition No,8623 of 1993 Date of Judgment:1993-09-19 Reported As: PLD 1993 Lahore 855 Result: Order accordingly
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT This writ petition has emanated from Writ Petition No,7459 of 1993, which in turn had originated from the Press reports alleging arbitrary allotment of a large number of residential plots by Mian Manzoor Ahmad Wattoo, the former Chief Minister of the Punjab, during his short tenure of a few months, especially during the last night of his rule, in various Housing Schemes of different official Development Agencies in the Province, mostly of Lahore Development Authority. 2.During the hearing of original writ petition referred to above, when it was still at the initial stage, on the persistent demand of the National Press it was considered expedient in the public interest to enlarge the scope of inquiry so as to bring within its purview similar arbitrary allotments of the State-owned plots allegedly made by different former Prime Ministers in the post-Third Martial Law period in various Housing Schemes of the Capital Development Authority, Islamabad. So, vide order, dated 1-8-1993, passed in the original Writ Petition (No, 7459 of 1993), this Court decided to commence the inquisitorial probe accordingly and directed the learned Attorney-General of Pakistan to place before, this Court on 8-8-1993, with the assistance of the Chairman of Capital Development Authority, Islamabad, a list, duly authenticated by him of the persons, whether individuals or firms or companies, who, during the period from the date on which late Mr. Muhammad Khan Junejo had assumed the office of the Prime Minister of Pakistan, till the dissolution of National Assembly on 18-7-1993, had been allotted residential or commercial plots within the Capital Territory by the Prime Ministers in exercise of their discretionary powers or from their discretionary quotas. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereunder:-- "As already mentioned, the Press, has suggested different points of time for the commencement of this probe. This Court would have commenced it from the time when the plots system in this
---
## Page 2
country had been introduced for the first time during the regime of late Mr. Z.A. Bhutto but it will be too lengthy a period. Besides, he was succeeded by a Martial Law regime spreading over about 11 years and, as we all know, the Martial Law Administration being conscious of their excesses and illegalities on account of the arbitrary exercise of their unbridled authority, take particular care to give legal protection to their acts and actions so that no subsequent regime can question their deeds or misdeeds. General Zia-ul-Haq, while lifting the Third Martial Law in the country, also resorted to this device and from the first civilian regime headed by late Mr. Muhammad Khan Junejo, got enacted and inserted Article 271-A in the Constitution. Therefore, this Court is not in a position to probe into anything done by him till 30-12-1985. As already indicated, the curse and malpractice of allotment of residential and commercial plots at the throw-away reserve prices by the Chief Executives of the country and those of the Provinces to their relations, friends and political associates began sometimes during mid-seventies and the allegations in this respect are not only against the Chief Ministers of the Provinces but also against the Prime Ministers of Pakistan. Therefore, it would be just and proper to include in this exercise, the Prime Ministers as well. So, it is directed that this inquisitorial probe shall commence from 30-12- 1985, the day the third Martial Law was formally lifted, or from the date on which the late Mr. Muhammad Khan Junejo had assumed the office of the Prime Minister of Pakistan, whichever is earlier. To give prompt effect to this order, it is directed that the learned Attorney-General of Pakistan, to whom this order shall be conveyed on Fax, with the assistance of the Chairman of Capital Development Authority, Islamabad, shall lay before this Court on 8-8-1993, a list, duly authenticated by the Chairman, of persons, whether individuals or firms or companies who, during the period from the abovesaid date till the dissolution of National Assembly on 18-7-1993, have been allotted residential or commercial plots within the Capital Territory by the Prime Ministers in the exercise of their discretionary powers or from their discretionary quota. This list shall contain the period of each Prime Minister, the names and full addresses of the allottees, the dates of the allotments, location, number and dimension of the plots and their price." 3.In compliance of the said order, Mr. Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, the learned Deputy Attorney- General stationed at Lahore on 8-8-1993 placed on the file duly authenticated lists of plots allotted within the jurisdiction of Capital Development Authority from the discretionary quota by different Prime Ministers from March 1985 to 18th of July, 1993. According to the periodwise break-up of the plots so allotted, late Muhammad Khan Junejo had allotted 129 residential plots; Ms. Benazir Bhutto during her tenure 561 plots Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi, the Care-taker Prime Minister 59 plots; and Mian Nawaz Sharif during his regime 23 plots, total being 772 plots. 4.On the receipt of this information, on the same day notices were directed to be issued to the three former Prime Ministers of Pakistan, namely, Ms. Benazir Bhutto, Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi and Mian Nawaz Sharif for their appearance on 19-8-1993, either personally or through their counsel and explain in their respective written statements as under what law or authority, they, during their respective tenures as Prime Ministers of Pakistan, had been allotting different kinds of plots to different persons mentioned in the lists provided by the learned Deputy Attorney-General? Copies of the lists were directed to be supplied to each of them to enable them to prepare their written statements. The relevant portion of the order, dated 8-8-1993, so made is reproduced hereunder:- "Since the information regarding the allotment of plots in Capital Development Authority by different Prime Ministers from their discretionary quotas has come on the record, notices similar to those already issued the Chief Ministers of the Punjab, should now be issued to Ms. Benazir Bhutto, Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi and Mian Nawaz Sharif, for the date fixed, to appear either personally or through their counsel and in their respective written statements explain as under what law or authority they, during their respective tenures as Prime Ministers, had been allotting different kinds of plots to different persons mentioned in the lists provided by the learned Deputy Attorney-
---
## Page 3
General. Copy of this order alongwith the copy of the lists so provided be supplied to each of them to enable them to prepare their written statements." 5.It may be mentioned here that eversince the proceedings in this writ petition commenced on 1-8- 1993, when the learned Attorney-General was asked to place on the record the lists of plots allotted by the former Prime Ministers, Mr. Habib-ul-Wahab Al-Khairi, Advocate who was even previously appearing in the main' writ petition as counsel for Aljahad Trust, Rawalpindi, the writ petitioners therein, continued to appear in this writ petition as counsel for the writ petitioner hereinbefore and after its separation from the main writ petition. 6.On 19-8-1993 W. Habib-ul-Wahab Al-Khairi, Advocate for the petitioner, adverted attention of the Court to the amended writ petition already placed by him on the file, indicating therein the names of Ms. Benazir Bhutto, Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi and Mian Nawaz Shag, the former Prime Ministers, as added respondents besides Mian Manzoor Ahmad Wattoo, Mr. Ghulam Haider Wyne and Mian Nawaz Sharif, who were already respondents in the main writ petition. The copies of the amended writ petition were directed to be given to the aforesaid respondents and they were asked to file written statements on 25-8-1993. As the proceedings concerning the allotments of plots by the former Prime Ministers were considered as separate and independent ones from the main writ petition concerning allotments of plots by the Chief Ministers, the former were directed to be separated from the latter and assigned a separate number as an independent writ petition. It is in this manner that the present Writ Petition No,8623 of 1993 came into existence. The relevant portion of the order dated 19-8-1993, passed in Writ Petition No,7459 of 1993 is reproduced for the facility of reference:-- Mr. Habib-ul-Wahab Al-Khairi, Advocate for the Petitioners. Sardar Latif Khan Khosa, Advocate for Mian Manzoor Ahmad Wattoo (respondent No,1). Mr. Rashid Murtaza Qureshi, Advocate for Syed Sarfraz Ahmad, respondent No,5. Mr, Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Deputy Attorney-General for Government of Pakistan/C.D.A., Islamabad. Syed Tasadaq Hussain Mani, Acting Advocate-General assisted by Mr. A.R. Arshad Malik, Advocate for Government of the Punjab,including Housing and Physical Planning Department/L.DA. Mr. Maqbool Elahi Malik and Mushtaq Ali Tahirkhali, Advocate for Mian Nawaz Sharif and Mian Ghulam Haider Wyne respondents. Mr. Abdul Sattar Najam and Syed Sharif Hussain Bokhari, Advocates for Ms. Benazir Bhutto respondent. Mr. Muhammad Hussain, Advocate for Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi, respondent. Nemo for applicants in C.M. Nos.1826 to 1829 of 1993 nor for C.M. No,1850 of 1993. Mr. Haider Usman and Mr. S.M, Bashir in person. Dr. Rashid Randhawa, Amin of Federal Bait-ul-Maal alongwith Mr. Muhammad Ismail Qureshi, Advocate. "On the last date of hearing, Mr. Habib-ul-Wahab Al-Khari, Advocate, representing the writ petitioner had placed before this Court the amended petition, indicating therein Mr. Ghulam Haider Wyne, Mian Nawaz Sharif, Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi and Ms. Benazir Bhutto and some officials as respondents besides Mian Manzoor Ahmad Wattoo, who is already a respondent, but the Court thought that it was a miscellaneous application and for that reason it was not given due weight. Now it has been noticed that it was in fact an amended writ petition which he filed in view of the aforesaid persons having been impleaded by this Court. It is, therefore, now treated as a regular amended writ petition, copy of which should now be passed on to the respondents and if they want to file written statements, they can do till the next date of hearing i,e, 25-8-1993. Copies have been passed on by Mr. Khairi, Advocate to the Advocates of the respondents. Since the matter
---
## Page 4
regarding the allotment of plots by the Prime Minister, from their discretionary quota, is separate and independent one, it should be separated from this file and given a separate number as writ petition. A copy of the amended writ petition be placed on that file alongwith the list of plots supplied by the C.DA. Through Deputy Attorney-General, Lahore, and other relevant papers or their copies." 7.Pursuant to the said order, the present writ petition bearing No,8623 of 1993 had simultaneously come into existence on that very date i,e, 19-8-1993 and the following opening order was passed thereon:- Mr. Habib-ul-Wahab Al-Khari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Deputy Attorney-General. Mr. Maqbool Elahi Malik and Mushtaq All Tahirkhali, Advocates for Mian Nawaz Sharif respondent. Mr. Abdus Sattar Najam and Syed Sharif Hussain Bokhari, Advocates for Ms. Benazir Bhutto. Mr. Muhammad Hussain, Advocate for Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi. "Proceedings relating to plots in C.DA., Islamabad are being treated as a separate writ petition. (2) Request for adjournment, in order to file written statements, has been made on behalf of all the respondents for different reasons. Counsel for Ms. Benazir Bhutto and Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi say that the office has not supplied the list of plots brought on the file by the Deputy Attorney-General, despite a direction of this Court, nor allowed access to the record, and perhaps without much valid reasons. Malik Maqbool Illahi, Advocate is, however, making request for adjournment for the second time. (3) The office should allow access of the record to the counsel for the respondents and supply them the copies of the lists of the plots submitted by the Deputy Attorney-General at their expenses, if necessary, as they are ready to pay the costs, if any. (4) Relist for filing of written statements on 25-8-1993. This shall be the last opportunity for them to do so. Arguments shall also be heard." 8.Proceedings in the present writ petition continued and on 26-8-1993 Mr. Habib-ul-Wahab Al- Khairi, Advocate appeared for the writ petitioner; Mr. Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Deputy Attorney- General for the Federal Government (though it is not a party); Mr. Abdus Sattar Najam and Syed Sharif Hussain Bokhari, Advocates for Ms. Benazir Bhutto (respondent No,1); Ch. Muhammad Hussain, Advocate for Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi (respondent No, 2) and Mr. Mabqool Elahi Malik and Mr. Mushtaq Ali Tahirkheli, Advocates for Mian Nawaz Sharif (respondent No,3). 9.Learned counsel for Mr. Jatoi brought on the file his written statement but the learned counsel for Ms. Benazir Bhutto and Mian Nawaz Sharif requested for another adjournment in order to file their respective written statements. Their request was granted and the proceedings were adjourned to 30-8-1993 with the caution that no further adjournment would be given to them for this purpose. On 30-8-1993 learned counsel representing the parties appeared in the same manner as they had put in appearance on the preceding date of hearing. Learned counsel for Mian Nawaz Sharif respondent placed on the file his written statement. However, another adjournment was requested on behalf of Ms. Benazir Bhutto respondent for filing written statement. The adjournment was granted to her counsel with the observation that she was apparently avoiding to file written statement by making repeated requests for adjournment and she should file the same till 8-9- 1993, with a copy thereof to the learned counsel for the petitioner and to the learned counsel for other respondents, failing which, she would be deemed to have forfeited her right to file it and final arguments would be heard on 12-9-1993. However, if this Bench was not available on that date, then the matter would be listed during the week commencing 18-9-1993. 10.The matter was listed by the office for 18-9-1993 and during the course of hearing it was brought to the notice of this Court that Ms. Benazir Bhutto respondent had meanwhile filed an I.CA. And the learned Division Bench of this Court passed an interim order. According to the learned counsel for
---
## Page 5
Ms. Benazir Bhutto respondent, the proceedings being taken by this Court had been stayed by the Division Bench, while the petitioner's counsel was of the opinion that operation of certain interim orders passed by this Court had been suspended and the proceedings had not been stayed. 11.To resolve this controversy, the original record of I.CA. No,363 of 1993 was summoned and perused with the help of the learned counsel representing the parties. To appreciate the implication of the order, dated 5-8-1993, it is reproduced hereunder:-- "Messrs Sharif Hussain Bokhari and Mian Abdus Sattar Najam, Advocates, for the appellant, Syed Tassadaq Hussain Jilani, Advocate-General, Mr. Wahab-ul-Khairi, Advocate respondent No,3. On the controversy, I.C.A. No,359 of 1993 (Mian Manzoor Ahmad Wattoo v. Mr. Abdul Wahab-ul- Khairi and another) and I.CA. No,360 of 1993 (Ghulam Haider Wyne v. Mr. Wahabul Khairi and another) were admitted to regular hearing by this Court on 1-9-1993. This appeal shall also be admitted for regular hearing. It shall be heard and decided alongwith the connected matters, referred to above. (2) The impugned orders dated 8th August and 19th August, 1993 shall remain suspended meanwhile, subject to notice. (3) Mr. Wahabul Khairi, respondent No3, acceptes notice. Office shall issue notices to the remaining respondents. (4) A request has been made by respondent No3 for fixation of the main appeal at an early date. He may move an application for fixation of the appeal at an actual date before the Honourable Chief Justice, keeping in view the urgency involved in the matter." 12.The perusal of the aforesaid order indicates that it was passed on 5-8-1993. In the first instance, it apparently could not suspend the interim orders of this Court dated 8-8-1993 and 19-8-1993 passed in the present Writ Petition (No,8623 of 1993). It appears that the date of the order passed by the learned Division Bench is incorrect. Further, no order was passed by this Court in this Writ Petition on 8-8-1993 as the opening order herein is dated 19-8-1993 as reproduced in para. 7 ante. It is, therefore, not ascertainable as which order, dated 8-8-1993, passed by this Court was suspended by the learned Division Bench. But if the order, dated 8-8-1993, passed in Writ Petition, No,7459 of 1993 was sought to be suspended, then Ms. Benazir Bhutto respondent-appellant should, in her I.CA. No,363 of 1993; have so prayed but she prayed for the suspension of the order, dated 8-8-1993, passed in the present Writ Petition No,8623 of 1993 besides the order, dated 19-8- 1993 passed herein and the learned Division Bench suspended the operation of these orders subject to notice. Therefore, the order, dated 8-8-1993, passed in Writ Petition No,7459 of 1993, which stands reproduced in para. 4 ante and by which Ms. Benazir Bhutto, Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi and Mian Nawaz Sharif were called upon by this Court to appear either personally or through their counsel and in their respective written statements to be filed by them explain as under 'what law or authority they, during their respective tenures as Prime Ministers, had been allotting State- owned plots of different kinds to different persons mentioned in the list provided by the learned Deputy Attorney-General, still remains intact. In other words, the learned Division Bench suspended only the order, dated 19-8-1993, passed by this Court in this Writ Petition (No,8623 of 1993). The necessary effect of its suspension is that Ms. Benazir Bhutto respondent could not be compelled to file written statement on 25-8-1993 and it did not affect any other portion of the order especially to the extent it related to Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi and Mian Nawaz Sharif whose learned counsel had also sought adjournment for filing their written statements. The order of the learned Division Bench did not affect them because they are not a party to I.CA. No,363 of 1993 and Ms. Benazir Bhutto respondent, who is the sole appellant in that matter, could only pray for any relief for herself and not for her corespondents who were not even party to the appeal. 13.In the prayer appended to the abovementioned I.CA. There was also a request for the stay of proceedings before this Court but it was not granted by the learned Division Bench. So I agree with
---
## Page 6
the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that proceedings in this writ petition are to continue. This being so, on 26-8-1993, the learned counsel representing Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi (respondent No,2) rightly filed the written statement of his client persuant to the earlier order and Ms. Benzair Bhutto (respondent No,1) and Mian Nawaz Sharif (respondent No,3) were rightly granted further adjournment for filing written statements on 30-8-1993. The latter through his learned counsel filed his written statement but the fomer did not and as such she will be deemed to have chosen not to file her written defence. 14.It may be mentioned here that on 18-9-1993 the learned counsel for Mian Nawaz Sharif and the learned counsel for the writ petitioner addressed arguments on the question of jurisdiction of this Court involved in this writ petition as also in the connected one (7459 of 1993) and the learned counsel for Ms. Benazir Bhutto and Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi remained present but since arguments could not be concluded on that day, both the writ petitions were adjourned to 19-9- 1993. On this date of hearing, arguments were addressed only by the petitioner's counsel assisted by Mr. Rashid Murtazh Qureshi, Advocate, and by Mr. Maqbool Elahi Malik, Advocate representing Mian Nawaz Sharif respondent in reply as also by the learned Acting Advocate-General who could not address argument earlier due to his preoccupation elsewhere. Neither the learned counsel for Ms. Benazir Bhutto respondent nor that of Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi respondent addressed any arguments, perhaps for the reason that their view point on the question of jurisdiction had already been conveyed during the arguments addressed by Mr. Maqbool Elahi Malik, the learned counsel for Mian Nawaz Sharif and the learned Acting Advocate-General of the Punjab. So the hearing was concluded and the order was announced. 15. Before proceeding to consider the legal aspect of the matter, I would like to refer to the contents of the written statement filed by Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi respondent and that of Mian Nawaz Sharif respondent. The former without raising any legal objection in his written statement, straightaway stated that during his tenure as Prime Minister of Pakistan he did not utilize 40 per cent. Discretionary quota of plots reserved for the Prime Minister for allotment in various Housing Schemes of the Capital Development Authority and it was under his directives that the said quota was voluntarily reduced from 40 per cent. Specified by the previous Government, to 10 percent so that the remaining 30 per cent. May be utilized by other deserving persons. He alleged that from the reduced 10 per cent. Quota he allotted most of the plots of smaller size measuring 10 Marlas each and only a few plots allotted by him were of the area of 1 Kanal. He claimed that he properly exercised the discretion vested in him in this respect on the advice of the concerned department without gaining anything for himself nor any allotment was made by him as a political bribe. 16.Mian Nawaz Sharif respondent in his written statement raised preliminary objections to the effect that this Court had no suo motu jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution, not other provisions of various Acts and Instruments invoked by this Court permit the exercise of this jurisdiction. On merits he alleged that the plots allotted by him were available for allotment in the Prime Minister discretionary quota and he properly exercised the discretion vested in him which cannot be mad( subject of inquiry by this Court. He added that during his tenure as Prime Minister no one made any complaint to him that he was more deserving person than those whom he had allotted the plots and if any body had made such complaint, he would have definitely redressed his grievance. He claimed that he had made allotments of the plots to the deserving persons. 17.As already indicated, neither the learned counsel representing Ms. Benazir Bhutto respondent nor the learned counsel for Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi respondent addressed any argument. It was only Mr. Maqbool Flahi Malik, Advocate (who represented Mian Nawaz Sharif respondent in this writ petition as also in the connected Writ Petition No,7459 of 1993 alongwith Mr. Ghulam Haider Wyne) and the learned Acting Advocate-General (who was in fact only concerned with the connected
---
## Page 7
Writ Petition (No,7459 of 1993) and had nothing to do with the one in hand) addressed elaborate arguments on the question of jurisdiction of this Court in the connected writ petition comprehensive arguments have been addressed on the question of jurisdiction by Mr. Habib-ul- Wahab Al-Khairi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner therein assisted by Mr Rashid Murtaza Qureshi, Advocate as also in this writ petition as the counsel for the petitioner in reply to the arguments of the learned opposing counsel. In this writ petition Mr. Khaki, Advocate is rather on better footing as he has remained associated as the petitioner's counsel from the very inception. In the connected writ petition the question of jurisdiction of this Court to initiate proceedings against the three Chief Ministers of the Punjab for the allotment of State-owned plots from their discretionary quota has elaborately been discussed and I do not feel the necessity of walking over the same ground again in this writ petition. Therefore, for the reason stated in the connected writ petition, suffice is here to say that this Court has ample jurisdiction to look into the allotment of plots by the respondents in their capacity as former Prime Minister of Pakistan,…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.