' By means of this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has sought a direction to Director-General, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Punjab, Lahore and Chairman National Accountability Bureau/respondents Nos.2 and 3 respectively.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case, as spelt out in this petition, are that Mst. Talah Bibi and others filed an application before the District Officer (Revenue), Faisalabad for implementation of order dated 24-7-1989 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kasur qua the correction of certain mutations pertaining to landed properties situated in Chak No,41/JB, Chak No,530/JB and Chak No,122/J5 District Faisalabad. The said application was accepted by the District Officer (Revenue), Faisalabad vide order dated 31-5-2004. Later on one Muhammad Ramzan filed an application before the District Officer (Revenue), Faisalabad for implementation of order dated 31-5-2004. Vide order dated 20-9-2007, the District Officer (Revenue), Faisalabad directed for implementation of order dated 31-5-2004. Aggrieved by order dated 31-5-2004, Abdul Rehman etc. Filed an appeal before the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Faisalabad wherein the operation of the order dated 31-5-2004 passed by the District Officer (Revenue), Faisalabad was suspended. Tauqeer Ahmad/respondent No,5 in addition to becoming party in appeal filed by Abdul Rehman etc. Also preferred an appeal before the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Faisalabad against the order dated 31-5-2004 wherein stay was granted to respondent No,5.
During the interregnum period, the petitioner, being Halqa Patwari entered Mutation No,39614 on 6- 12-2007 which was duly compared by the Kanungo and was finally attested by Tehsildar concerned on 28-3-2008. On 7-6-2008 respondent No,5 filed a petition before the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Faisalabad for initiation of contempt proceedings against the Revenue Field Staff for violating the stay order issued by the said Authority. On the dint of mutation No,39614, Taleh Bibi and others became owners of certain properties out of which 36 kanals were alienated to one Imran Sher Ali by them whereas the rest of the property was transferred by way of Waqaf in favour of T.M.A, Lyallpur Town, Faisalabad. Respondent No,5 also moved an application before Tehsildar City Faisalabad for cancellation of Mutations Nos.40279-40282 attested on 11-6-2008. On the move of respondent No,5, the Revenue Officer cancelled the said mutations. In addition thereto, respondent No,5 and others filed an application before the Senior Member Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore against the Revenue Field Staff involved in the sanctioning of aforesaid mutations.
' The matter was inquired into by the Revenue hierarchy. However, on the intervention of Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister Punjab de novo proceedings are being conducted by respondent No,2. The petitioner is regularly appearing before respondent No,2. Again the matter was taken up by the Punjab Provincial Assembly by one of its member namely, Syed Hassan Murtaza. Further the application filed by respondents Nos.6 to 8 has been forwarded to D.G, Anti-Corruption Establishment/respondent No,3 where inquiry (bearing No,877) is under way. Furthermore National Accountability Bureau has also initiated inquiry against order dated 31-5-2004 passed by the District Officer (Revenue), Faisalabad wherein petitioner has been summoned more than once.
Aggrieved by inquiries regarding the same incident by different forums, the petitioner has filed the instant petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that initiation of proceedings against the petitioner before different forums amounts to double jeopardy which being violative of Article 13 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan is not maintainable; that the acts of respondents Nos.1 to 4 run against the fundamental rights, guaranteed by the constitution; that in fact proceedings against the petitioner before different forums is result of political pressure 'being exerted by the opponents of the petitioner; that a bare perusal of the applications filed before respondents Nos.1 to 4 makes it abundantly clear that no offence is made out against the petitioner; that there is no remote chance of petitioner's conviction on the, charges levelled against him; that proceedings against the petitioner is result of personal vengeance; that the proceedings before respondents Nos.1 to 4 against the petitioner are aim that to destroy his good reputation in the vicinity and that the continuation of proceedings before different forums against the petitioner would amount to misuse the process of law.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the documents- appended with this petition. During the said exercise we have found that initially respondent No,5 and others filed an application before the Senior Member Board of Revenue,.
Punjab, Lahore for initiation of departmental proceedings against the Revenue Field Staff who were involved in attestation of mutation in 'presence of the stay order issued by Executive District Officer (Revenue), Faisalabad on appeals filed by Abdul Rehman etc. And respondent No,5 and others whereas D.G, Anti Corruption Establishment took up the matter on the application filed by respondents Nos.6 to 8 which was forwarded to him by the Prime Minister Secretariat, Islamabad.
Moreover, NAB Authorities in view of the importance of the matter also initiated an inquiry qua the order passed by the District Officer (Revenue), Faisalabad- on 31-5-2004. It is an admitted position that the initial Mutation No,39614 was entered by the petitioner during the pendency of appeals filed by the respondent No,5 and others. Subsequently, on the application of respondent No,5 the subsequent mutations in favour of Imran Sher Ali have also been cancelled by the Revenue Officer concerned.
' The Revenue hierarchy probing into the conduct of the Revenue Field Staff whereas Anti Corruption Establishment is considering the same from the angle of receiving illegal gratification by the concerned Revenue Staff while National Accountability Bureau is holding an inquiry qua the fraud played by some unscrupulous persons in connivance with the Revenue Field Staff. Thus, it is not open for the petitioner to say that he is being proceeded against before different forums qua the same allegations.
' According to the petitioner himself no forum has ever concluding proceedings. Thus, the petitioner's claim that he is being double jeopardized is misconceived. Even otherwise in view of the importance of the matter, the adjudication of the matter by different authorities from different angles would be helpful to bring out the truth. Therefore, it is not fair to halt the proceedings initiated by different agencies to consider the matter from different angles. Consequently, we see no force in this petition which is hereby dismissed in limine.