During hearing, Barrister Asad-ul-Mulk appeared on behalf of the petitioners while Additional Advocate General Muhammad Sohail appeared before PHC on behalf of the government. Barrister Asad-ul-Mulk told the court that the area contains the ancestral lands of local population but the provincial government had declared 97% lands to be its property.
He said that at the previous hearing, the PHC had benevolently ordered the settlement record of Chitral to be impounded by the DC Lower Chitral. He requested that since the impounding of the record was of no benefit to the petitioners, the order of impounding may be recalled and substituted with a direction to the settlement office to continue to entertain the applications for rectification already lodged with the settlement office by Chitral residents.
On the other hand, the additional advocate general said that the government had spent over Rs35 billion on the settlement process of Chitral, and the petition challenged the vires of that process. He stated that in case the petition is allowed and rectification of the settlement record ordered, this would have grave financial consequences for the government. And in view of this position, the advocate general, who was unavailable owing to exigent circumstances, himself wanted to plead the case on behalf of government and the case may be adjourned accordingly.
Chitral residents claim many people have ancestral lands but KP govt declared 97pc lands to be its property
The 1975 Notification issued in the wake of the Chitral Land Dispute Enquiry Commission’s report declares all “mountains”, “waste-lands”, “barren-lands” and “pastures” to be property of the provincial government without defining these terms or demarcating these areas. In reliance upon the notification, 97% of the land mass of Chitral has been entered in the name of the provincial government in the settlement records, he elaborated.
Justice Ibrahim Khan, while acceding to the request of the petitioners, dictated an order recalling the court’s previous order, directing the settlement record to be impounded and simultaneously directed the government to continue the settlement process and restrained it from concluding the same.
The court also observed that because there was allegation that the title of 97% of the land mass of the two districts had been entered in the government’s name, then the court would necessarily look into the legality of the process.