LAHORE - The Lahore High Court last week issued a detailed judgment regarding Lahore Development Authority’s failure in a 31-year old matter of allotment of a plot in a locality of the provincial metropolis.

Justice Muhammad Irfan Khan passed the judgment on a contempt petition filed by a lady petitioner against LDA’s former director general Ahed Khan Cheema and others for not complying with the court orders. Justice Khan ordered the incumbent DG not only to dismiss all corrupt officials who are found guilty of preparing bogus allotments files, misappropriating the original record or involved in illegal and corrupt practices after due process of law, but also to refer their cases to NAB/Anti-Corruption Establishment. However, the judge did not proceed with the contempt petition against Cheema and other officials.

“Contempt of this court has taken place a number of times in the course of this sordid story of usurpation of rights and property of a private citizen, followed by demonstration of high handedness of the executive and functionaries to compensate the citizen adequately and properly. However, as grievance of the petitioner has been redressed, this court is not proceeding further with the contempt petition against the respondents, by showing grace and mercy to them with the expectation that they would mend their ways. The contempt petition is disposed of accordingly,” the judge held in his ruling.

Sabiha Khanam, the petitioner who fought her case for more than two years for possession of her plot in Block-D of Mohlanwal Housing Scheme, perhaps did not have enough stamina to bear more expenses to press the contempt petition even after her grievances were redressed. To get compensated for her mental agony and all other troubles, she had faced in the shape of long wait in addition to the costs of filing the case for justice.

According to details, the petitioner had a plot measuring five kanals and 14 marlas which was acquired by LDA in 1985 for establishing colony by the name of Mohlanwal Housing Scheme. As per policy, the petitioner was entitled to get an exempted plot of one Kanal on her acquired land as per her choice. Accordingly, the petitioner demanded plot in Block-D of the aforesaid scheme. But the respondents allotted her a plot in Block-E which was at some distance from her acquired land on the pretext that no plot was available in Block-D.

Feeling aggrieved by this action of the respondent - LDA - the petitioner filed a writ petition which was allowed by the court on January 20, 2015. The court passed an order in favour of the petitioner but the authority willfully violated it. This compelled the lady to move the contempt petition.

The judgment would certainly be regarded as ‘landmark’ by the future generations as the head of Lahore Development Authority has been spared and action has been ordered against his subordinates.

In another case, the LHC sought reply from federal government, federal board of revenue and OGRA in a petition challenging the federal government decision of imposing 17 percent general sales tax (GST) on petroleum products.

About 250 petitions of police officers including SPs, DSPs and police inspector, challenging their demotion orders, were dismissed as not maintainable.

Chief Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah observed that the petitioners should approach the service tribunal for redress of their grievance.

The promotions of these officials were held as illegal by the Supreme Court, after which they were demoted. Now the government is re-fixing the seniority of the demoted police officials.

The high court also disposed of last week petitions challenging amendments in local government laws that had also changed procedure for election of mayors/deputy mayors from secret balloting to show of hands.

During the week, a citizen moved a constitutional petition before the LHC, praying that strength of judges of LHC be completed immediately and appointments be made after inviting applications from across the country from all advocates who have more than 10 years practice in any high court.

Moreover, three important cases were taken up by the Supreme Court Lahore registry, first about a retired army officer seeking implementation of order of Border Area Committee which had allotted him 54 kanal land in municipal area; second against the No Objection Certificates being issued by the Punjab government for installation of publicity boards in different places in Lahore; and third petition about children’ kidnapping in various cities of Punjab.

The Supreme Court dismissed the first petition and held that the Border Area Committee has no authority to allot land in the limits of cities. The bench headed by Justice Mian Saqib Nisar heard the petition of Maj (r) Ahmed Ali who submitted that the Committee allotted him 54 kanal land after retirement but the Revenue Department was not implementing that order.

Objecting on the application, Punjab Additional Advocate General Khawar Ikram Bhatti said that the Border Area Committee issued an illegal order as it could only allot land to retired military officers within 5 miles area of the border, but it allotted this land which is far away from the border.

In the second case, the Supreme Court sought reply from the Punjab government as to how the permits were issued for installation of publicity boards in different places in the city. A two-judge bench comprising Justice Mian Saqib Nisar and Justice Faisal Arab heard the case at SC Lahore registry. The bench observed serious concerns over installation of billboards/hoardings in different places in the city. The apex court gave 15 days time to the government to submit its reply.

In the third case, the SC constituted a committee headed by SCBA President Barrister Ali Zafar and sought report from the committee. Later, the committee established a helpline - 1121 - at Advocate General Punjab office.

The SC would resume hearing of the case of child abductions on August 25.