' QAZI FAEZ ISA, CJ. Apiece of land, bearing KhasraNo, 517, measuring 6 rods and 36 poles situated in Mahal Sirki Kalan, Mouza Sirki, Tappa Saddar, Tehsil and ,District Quetta, was owned by Muhammad Hashim, Muhammad Bakhsh and Ghulam Qadir respectively the fathers of the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the "fathers"). Land acquisition proceedings under the Balochistan Land Acquisition Ordinance, 1979 read with MLO 102 to acquire the said land and certain other lands were initiated by the Assistant Commissioner (respondent No, 6) in his capacity as the Collector, Quetta Sub Division as the same were required for the construction of a bridge over the railway tracks to connect Zarghoon Road and Sariab Road. The overhead bridge was to be constructed to ensure the free flow of traffic, without waiting for the Sariab Railway Crossing to open after the train/s had passed. The Collector made his award. Award No 1551/3/81 dated 11th July .1981, pursuant to which the land was acquired and compensation determined, which was at the rate of one hundred thousand rupees per acre. The land acquisition proceedings were completed on 12th May 1988 and the land was transferred in the name of the Government of Balochistan in the revenue record maintained by the respondent No, 7 in the Tehsil Office on 15th May 1988, vide mutation No, 1360.
2. The overhead bridge was constructed by the Quetta Development Authority ("QDA") and opened for traffic. Subsequently, the fathers noticed that the land that a portion of the land which formed part of the land that had been compulsorily acquired had been occupied by some private parties, so they approached QDA for provision of information, but were stonewalled. In this regard the late Mr. Ghulam Raza (the father of petitioner Nos. 6, 7 and 8) wrote a number of letters to QDA, including letter dated 9th December 2009 seeking copies of the said 'sale deed' and other relevant documents, which was responded to by QDA, thus: "The file in question has been submitted to Chairman, QDA on return of the same the requisite documents will be provided to you as per rule", but QDA did not provide the same, therefore, applications dated 26th November 2009 and 13th January 2010 were submitted to the Chief Minister, and a reminder dated 27th October 2010 was submitted to QDA. An application dated 1st April 2011 was also sent to the Tehsildar City, Quetta asking him not to mutate the land in favour of any person. Another application dated 12th April 2011 for return of the unutilized land was submitted to the Deputy Commissioner (respondent No, 5), which was copied to the Commissioner and to QDA. A complaint dated 26th December 2011 was also sent to the Director General National Accountability Bureau ("NAB") stating that the owners had agreed to permit the land to be acquired for a public purpose, but had learnt that a sizeable portion of land compulsorily acquired from them had been illegally transferred to Mr. Sultan Ahmed (respondent No, 9) at a throwaway price and called upon NAB to investigate. However, since the applications and complaints were ignored the petitioners were constrained to file this petition on 3rd May 2012.
3. The petitioners managed to find out that a 'sale deed' dated 26th April 2007 had been executed in respect of 30,492 square feet of land, which formed part of the land that had been compulsorily acquired; the 'sale deed' was executed by QDA in favour of Mr. Sultan Ahmed. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that at the relevant time Mr. Maqbool Ahmed Lehri (respondent No, 8) was the Nazim City District Government and in such capacity also held the post of Chairman, QDA and alleged in the petition that, "by misusing his official position and by preparing forged documents got allotted the plot in question in favour of respondent No,9". It was further stated that "respondent No, 9 is mechanic by profession having rented shop" and could not afford to purchase a large plot, "which was actually paid by respondent No, 8." It was contended by the petitioners' counsel that Mr. Sultan Ahmed's name was used whereas the real owner was Mr. Maqbool Lehri, and in this regard he referred to the following part from the order sheet of 18th July 2012, reproduced hereunder:--- "Mr. Sultan Ahmed, respondent No, 9 is present. He has produced his original CNIC. Mr. Sultan Ahmed states that he has no concern with this matter. Mr. Nadir Ali Chalgari, Advocate states that under such circumstances it would be appropriate if his statement is recorded. Mr. Sultan Ahmed agrees to record his statement and the request of Mr. Nadir Chalgari is also not opposed by Mr. Tahir All Baloch, Advocate and leaned Additional Advocate General. Accordingly statement of Mr. Sultan Ahmed was separately recorded."
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that in case the land or any part thereof which had been compulsorily acquired was not required by QDA the same should have been returned to those from whom the land had been compulsorily acquired. In this regard he relied upon section 113 of the Quetta Development Authority Ordinance, 1978 ("the QDA Ordinance"), reproduced here under:--- "113. Power to dispose of land-
(1) The Authority may retain, or may lease, sell, exchange, rent or otherwise dispose of any land vested in or acquired by it under this Ordinance.
(2) Whenever the Authority decides to lease or sell any land acquired by it under this Ordinance from any person, it shall-
(a) give notice through advertisement in newspapers published in the Quetta City.
(b) offer to the person or persons, from whom the land has been acquired, or their heirs, executors or administrators, a prior right to lease or purchase such land, at rate to be fixed by the Authority, if in its discretion it determines that such lease or sale is in the public interest."
' The learned counsel stated that admittedly no advertisement was placed by QDA as required pursuant to clause (a) of subsection (2) of section 113 of the QDA Ordinance nor was an offer made to the petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest. The learned counsel placed reliance upon the case of Shahbaz v Government of Jammu & Kashmir (1992 M LD 2121), and in particular the following extract there from:- "8. Section 4(14)(3)(c) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, postulates that nothing shall affect the validity of any law providing for the acquisition of any class of property for the purpose of:-
(i) providing education and medical aid to all or any specified class of State Subjects; ' The land in dispute was acquired for quite a valid purpose, fully protected by the provisions of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act. Thus, the land acquired for a valid public purpose like the construction of Girls Middle School and its playground, was not violative of or in conflict with the provisions of the Interim Constitution Act.
9. Another relevant aspect of the proposition may be that an acquired land when no longer is required for the stipula1td purposes, it may be disposed of by its return to the petitioners who are successors-in-interest of the last owner of the land. The Land Acquisition Act provides no specific scheme or formula for the disposal of the land when it was not required for the stipulated public purpose. Nevertheless, in such situation, it was desirable that it should be restored to the last owner either on payment of price assessed as compensation at the time of award or its market value or by an open auction, as it may be deemed expedient. In such respect, the discretion vested in the School authorities or Education Department or Ministry of Education or the Government, to come to the rescue of the petitioners by restoring necessary portion of the land to them to enable them to utilize their house, without any hardship or inconvenience. As the discretion primarily vested in the authorities mentioned above, this Court was not allowed to usurp the discretion of such authorities, by granting any relief in the case."
5. That Mr. Maqbool Lehri filed a detailed counter affidavit opposing the petition. In his counter affidavit he stated that after the bridge had been constructed by QDA "a piece of land was transferred to Quetta Municipal Corporation (QMC) by the QDA and QMC constructed an Octroi Post. So far as the land measuring 38,000 sq. Ft. i,e, the plot in question is concerned, the then Administrator Municipal Corporation Quetta wrote a letter No,1465/QMC/96 dated 29th Jun 1996 to Chief Engineer/Director Estate Quetta Devel pment Authority that QMC has no concern with the land in q estion, even land in question never belonged to QDA" (paragraph 6).-He however emphasized that he had no role to play in the sale when the land was sold by QDA as he, "was elected as Nazim City District Government Quetta cum Chairman QDA and he took charge on 17th October 2005" (paragraph 7) and "that all the process with regard to allotment of land in question fixation of its price had already been completed by the competent authorities prior to the start of tenure of replying respondent i,e, 17th October 2005" (last subparagraph of paragraph 7, page 7).
Mr. Maqbool Lehri denied having any connection with Mr. Sultan Ahmed and that he "had not paid a single penny on behalf of respondent No, 9 in respect of price of land in question nor replying respondent was concerned therewith" (paragraph 8).
6. That whilst Mr. Maqbool Lehri was most emphatic in asserting that he had nothing to do with the land `sold' to Mr. Sultan Ahmed he painstakingly tried to establish the title of Mr. Sultan Ahmed (respondent No, 9) to the land: "Since there was no need of utilizing the plot in question for widening the overhead bridge, therefore, the allotment order of plot in question was made in favour of respondent No, 9 by the approval of Chief Minister and competent authorities according to prevailing market rate" (paragraph 15 of his counter affidavit), and that, "the department was not bound to give notice to petitioners, advertise the same in Newspapers or offer the land in question first to petitioners rather was under legal obligation to have allotted the same to respondent No,9"
(paragraph 13). He however admitted that respondent No, 11, one of the subsequent transferees of the said land, was his brother, and the other two transferees respectively respondent Nos. 10 and 12 were his paternal cousins. It was also admitted that the respondent No, 13, the person who transferred the land on the basis of a general power of attorney to respondent Nos. 10 to 12, was also a cousin of Mr. Maqbool Lehri.
7. Mr. Muhammad Arshad Chaudhary, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 10, 11 and 12, referred to the jointly filed counter affidavit by them. Their counter affidavit was similar to the one filed by Mr. Maqbool Lehri. They stated that, "The Government of Balochistan was therefore the owner of said land and as such the land in dispute was sold/allotted to respondent No, 9 by Govt of Balochistan through Q.D.A" (paragraph C, page 2) and, "Legally the provisions of S. 113 apply to Q.D.A. Only and since the land in dispute was sold out by the Provincial Government to which the same provision do not apply" (paragraph C, page 3). It was further stated, "That respondents No, 10 to 12 are bona fide purchasers of land in dispute having paid the due sale considerations"
(paragraph G, page 5), however, the purported sale consideration paid by them for the said land was not disclosed. It was further mentioned that, "Respondent No, 9 had filed an application to Chief Minister, Balochistan for allotment of land in dispute which was allowed on 28-09-1997 and in pursuance thereof cost of land in dispute was got assessed and finally respondent No, 9 was called upon to deposit the sale price accordingly. In fact the land in dispute was allotted to respondent No, 9 by the orders / recommendations of Chief Minister who also got the rates thereof assessed and fixed and accordingly the respondent No, 9 was asked by to deposit the sale amount where after the land in dispute was transferred to respondent No, 9 by the Government of Balochistan through D.G. Of Q.D.A. On basis of a sale deed dated 26-04-2007" (paragraph 7, pages 10 and 11).
The amount paid by the respondent No, 9 for the said land was also not disclosed.
8. That Mr. Sultan Ahmed (the respondent No, 9) did not file a counter affidavit. His version of the facts are mentioned in his statement on oath recorded on 18th July 2014, which is reproduced hereunder:- "I have been wrongly joined as a party as I have no concern with the land in question. Though he land was bought in my name, but I did not pay for the same. Mr. Maqbool Ahmed Lehri purchased the said land, but used my name as a purchaser. I agreed to act as the front man of Mr. Maqbool Ahmed Lehri on account of my friendship with him. I, however, did not receive any financial or any other benefit in respect of the said transaction. I did not execute any power of attorney. However, I may add that my signature was obtained by Mr. Maqbool Ahmed Lehri in the year 2006, but I do not recollect whether the document was signed by me on blank or it contained any text. Though I am not very educated but I can read Urdu but I am not in a position to read English. Mr. Rustam Khan is the cousin of Mr. Maqbool Ahmed Lehri as his father and Mr. Maqbool Ahmed Lehri's father are real brothers. I see power of attorney dated 13.4.2006 (at page 43), sale deed dated 26.4.2007 (at page 47) and an undated rectification deed (at page 55) and confirm that the said three documents bear my signature in Urdu. I have no concern with the construction that is being raised on the said land. I say that the said land was never owned by me nor do I have any claim in respect thereof. I never submitted any application to the Chief Minister for allocation of the said land to me."
' Interestingly and significantly whilst respondent No, 8 and respondent Nos. 10 to 12 pleaded that the respondent No, 9 was the legitimate and bona fide purchaser of the land the respondent No, 9 disowned its ownership and had a different tale to tell.
9. That on 17th October 2012 an application under section 151 CPC was filed by Mr. Maqbool Lehri for "discarding/excluding the statement recorded by respondent No, 9 against applicant/respondent No, 8". We allow this application to the extent that respondent No, 9 deposed against respondent No, 8 because when his statement was recorded the respondent No, 8 had not made an appearance and therefore did not get an opportunity to cross examine him. However, the following statements made by respondent No, 9, which do not implicate respondent No, 8, can be relied upon:--- "I never submitted any application to the Chief Minister for allocation of the said land to me."
"The said land was never owned by me nor do I have any claim in respect thereof."
"I did not pay for the same" [the said land].
10. That, vide order dated 14th November 2012, QDA was directed to produce "all the original files of the subject property" and "also bring the record as to when payment in respect of the subject land was received by QDA". Vide the same order the Government of Balochistan (which had still not filed comments) was directed "to file comments and such comments should specifically attend to whether land acquired by Government of Balochistan for the purpose of building overhead bridge by Quetta Development Authority ("QDA") could be disposed of / leased / sold by QDA and, if so, under what circumstances. The Government of Balochistan is further directed to produce all the documents pertaining to the said land through a senior officer."
11. That on the following date of hearing (22nd November 2012) the Director Estate of QDA placed before us letter dated 4th November 2011 of NAB (Balochistan) which required the Director General, QDA to produce the documents listed therein, and stated that in pursuance thereof the complete file (in original) of the matter was handed to NAB. Therefore, on 22nd November 2012, we directed NAB (Balochistan) "to produce the original file in its custody". And on the next date of hearing, i,e, 6th December 2012, the said file was produced in court through the Deputy Prosecutor General, NAB.
12. That the abovementioned file of QDA disclosed that 'Sultan Ahmed' had instituted Suit No, 79 of 1993 in the Court of Civil Judge-I, Quetta on 20th April 1993 for declaration and permanent injunction against four defendants, respectively, the Administrator Municipal Corporation, Municipal Magistrate, Illaqa Magistrate and the Station House Officer. The suit sought a declaration that the plaintiff, "is in lawful legal possession of the land situated under the over-head bridge, Sariab Road, Quetta, measuring 38,000.00 Sq. Ft. On the basis of lease agreement dated 6.5.91 duly executed with the defendant No, 1" and that "the defendants have no right title vested in them to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the land". In the suit valuation clause it was simply stated, "That the subject matter of the suit for the purpose of declaration and injunction is valued and the court fee as provided under the law is duly affixed", however no value was mentioned and sixteen rupees worth of stamps were affixed on the plaint. The cause of action that necessitated the filing of the suit was because, "a day back, when defendant No, 1 along with other defendants with their agencies came to the land in question and threatened for forcible dispossession of plaintiff."
13. The abovementioned 'lease' was in respect of, "A plot of land measuring 38,000 sft situated under the overhead bridge, Sariab Road, Quetta." The only financial outlay on the part of the 'lessee' was payment of yearly rent of two thousand and five hundred rupees. The 'lease' was silent on why it was executed and for what purpose the land was 'leased'. That the referred to "lease agreement dated 6.5.91" was executed by the 'Mayor, Quetta Municipal Corporation' in favour of 'Mr. Sultan Ahmed'. The Mayor who executed the 'lease' was the same Mr. Maqbool Lehri. However, at the time when the suit was filed the affairs of the Corporation had been taken over by an Administrator.
14. That QDA upon learning of the said suit filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, which was opposed by plaintiff through one Ali Ahmed, but there isn't a power of attorney (nor a copy thereof) on the record of the trial court to show that he was the plaintiffs attorney. The application was allowed vide order dated 20th October 1993 and QDA was arrayed as defendant No, 5; consequently, amended plaint was filed by Ali Ahmed. The Corporation in paragraph 5 of its written statement referred to order No, 737-A/PPS/QMC and stated. That the purported lease "has been terminated on 19.4.1993", i,e, before the filing of the suit. It further stated that, "the Corporation is not the owner of said property" (paragraph 4 of the written statement) and as such it was not authorized to execute the purported 'lease'. It was further stated that the 'lease' "is neither properly stamped nor registered as required under law" (paragraph 2 of the written statement). QDA in its written statement categorically asserted ownership of the land and stated that the "alleged lease" is "patently void and without jurisdiction, and in violation of the law / Rules" and "neither any consent was obtained from Quetta Development Authority nor necessary procedure was adopted before the grant of lease" (paragraph 1 of its written statement).
15. That issues in the suit were framed on 26th December 1993 and vide judgment dated 26th October 1995 the suit was dismissed by the learned Judge Mr. Muhammad lqbal Shahwani. Civil Appeal No, 140 of 1995 was filed against the said judgment and the case was remanded on 8th May 1996 by the learned Additional Judge Mr. Amanullah Baloch. Thereafter, an application dated 6th November 1997 was filed for the withdrawal of the suit with permission to file fresh suit, which application was allowed vide order dated 7th November 1997, but subject to payment of 25,000 rupees. Against the part of the order that had imposed the said costs Civil Appeal No,53 of 1997 was filed. The said appeal was converted into a revision and the order dated 7th November 1997 to the extent of imposing cost was set aside. However, the plaintiff appears to have given up his claim as he did not file a fresh suit.
' That as an abundant precaution we sent for the original record of the trial court and the appellate court which bore out the facts as mentioned above.
16. That a day before the aforesaid suit was filed the Corporation had initiated criminal proceedings against Mr. Sultan Ahmed under section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for removal of public nuisance. Criminal Revision under section 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed before the Additional Sessions Judge who dismissed it on 30th October 1993 against which order Criminal Miscellaneous Quashment No, 22 of 1993 was filed in the High Court which too was dismissed vide judgment dated 9th January 1994 authored by Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry (as he then was). The learned judge of the High Court referred to Rule 8 of the Balochistan Local Government Property Rules, 1983 where under, "the Mayor at his own authority was empowered to lease out a property not exceeding one year. Therefore, subject to all just exceptions, after the expiry of one year of the lease agreement dated 6th May, 1991, the petitioner has no vested right to claim the protection of the law. Besides of the fact, the lease agreement was not registered in accordance with law." "The leased land was owned by Q.D.A. And not by the Municipal Corporation, thus on this account as well, the petitioner has no vested right"
(paragraph 7 of the judgment). The judgment of the High Court was assailed in Criminal Petition No, 9-Q of 1994 before the Supreme Court, which was disposed off on 23rd November 1994 on the statement of Mr. Ejaz Yousuf, the then Additional Advocate General, that "no proceedings under Section 133 Cr. P. C. Are pending against the petitioner" (last paragraph of the order).
17. That Mr. Maqbool Lehri has mentioned the said order of the Supreme Court (in paragraph 7 of his counter affidavit) after stating that, "QMC executed thirty (30) years lease deed in favour of respondent no. 9 on 31.05.1991", but without disclosing the other orders/judgments',and the filing of the said suit, thereby presenting a distOrte0 impi-ession of the facts and one that is contrary to the 'record:That it was with a view to avoid criminal liability that the said suit was filed. The plaintiff, Mr. Sultan Ahmed, however did not file a fresh suit after withdrawing the suit, despite the fact that the Corporation had cancelled the lease, and has categorically stated before us that he has no interest in the said land.
18. That Mr. Sultan Ahmed has categorically stated on oath that he never submitted any application to the Chief Minister, which is also confirmed by the facrand the signatures on such applications do not remotely resemble his, therefore the person who was submitting these applications and attending to the matter will hereinafter be referred to as "the land-grabber". The land-grabber now adopted a different approach. In the words of Mr. Maqbool Lehri, "Thereafter, the respondent No, 9 filed application before Chief Minister Balochistan for allotment of the land in question which was accepted on 28th September 1997" (paragraph 7 page 5 of his counter affidavit). The said application (annexure `C/I' to respondent No, 8's counter affidavit) is reproduced hereunder:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' The above application in Urdu is dated 1st April 1997 and, whilst it is stated to have been signed by Mr. Sultan Ahmed, bears a signature which does not remotely resemble Mr. Sultan Ahmed's admitted signatures on record. Mr. Sultan Ahmed has also stated on oath that he had not submitted any application to the Chief Minister.
' That the said application was directly entertained by the Chief Minister and no departmental summary pursuant to the Rules of Business accompanied the same. A single word is inscribed on the application - "Report" - and a squiggle-(instead of a signature) underneath it and the date "7.4.97", but neither the name nor designation of the person who wrote the same is mentioned. Be that as it may, the said application came to engage the attention of the highest echelons of QDA, a statutory authority, and the Government too. A 'summary' of sorts was then prepared, which intentionally suppressed the true facts. The said 'summary' falsely stated that, "The latest position of the case is that Mr. Sultan Ahmed filed a suit in the court of Civil Judge-I Quetta. The case is sub judice and no decision has so far been arrived at". On this 'summary' of half-truths the Chief Minister on 28th September 1997, wrote:- "This is an old case and the Authority has already given its approval for lease of land and settlement with the applicant. Now, since the applicant wants to buy the land, the Director General, Q.D.A. May settle the matter by negotiations with the applicant, keeping the rates of Commercial and other categories in mind."
' The summary intentionally mislead the Chief Minister, as the 'case' was not pending, QDA had not "already given its approval for lease of land" and no "settlement with the applicant" had been approved by QDA. Instead QDA had filed its written statement in the suit opposing the claim of 'Sultan Ahmed', and subsequently, the suit was withdrawn.
19. The then Chief Secretary Syed Shahid Hussain attempted to prevent the usurpation of public land and wrote the following note on 14th March 1998:- ' I normally expect a proposal to have been articulated before submission to the Chief Minister.
Merely saying "for kind consideration of the Chief Minister" amounts to abdication of responsibility for the ultimate decision, which may be for reasons of safety. Secondly the file is not complete. I remember having sent a note to the Speaker of National Assembly in this behalf. That note contains the gist of the matter. I do not find that note on the file. Thirdly most of the papers placed on the file are photo copies. I would rather deal with original file and the whole file."
' Thereafter, in purported compliance with the Chief Secretary's observations a few notes were written on the file, but which clearly did not attend to the substance of the matter, and the file was again placed before the said Chief Secretary, who once again opposed the proposal to hand over a valuable piece of real estate to a private party and on 29th May 1998 wrote:--- "Please submit a summary to the Chief Minister pointing out the implications of this decision which will impact adversely on the QDA as the land is much too valuable to be leased out like that; and besides there is no precedent to return the acquired land paid for by public agency like QDA. Also please refer to Land Acquisition Act."
' The matter was not again placed before Chief Secretary Syed Shahid Hussain. Thereafter, a number of notes were inscribed on the file, but unlike the Chief Secretary who clearly wrote his name and title whenever he wrote a note thereon, it is not clear who wrote these other notes. It is however revealed that the rates for the land were "negotiated with him with him [the land- grabber] by the Ex-Director General QDA i,e, Rs, 450/- per SFT for commercial area and Rs, 250/- per SFT for residential area" and that the offer was communicated vide letter dated 20th August 1998 by the Director General QDA Mr. Mohammad Anwar Lehri. The land-grabber was extended yet another benefit, by the artifice of bifurcating the land notionally into a "commercial area" and a "residential area" and designating the bulk of it as "residential area", the price of which was only Rupees 250 per square foot. However, the land-grabber was still not satisfied and vide letter dated August 1998 (signed in English) replied to the offer letter of QDA and laid down his own price i,e, 400 rupees per square foot for the "commercial area" and 150 rupees per square foot for the "residential area".
20. The matter was then placed before the Governing Body of QDA in its meeting of 1st April 1999 (item 18 of the agenda) for approval of allotment of the land at the reduced prices to the land- grabber, ostensibly Mr. Sultan Ahmed. QDA's Governing Body rejected the proposal. The following portion from the minutes of the meeting is reproduced:- I) It was decided that the land occupied illegally by Mr. Sultan Ahmed S/O Shadi Khan may be got vacated with the help of concerned authorities. Ii) The construction of second phase of the bridge may be examined and report be submitted."
21. That despite, .The aforesaid decision of the Governing Body of QDA the landgrabber did not give up. He persisted and directly addressed an undated letter to the Chief Minister, this time in English; under yet another signature in Urdu, which is reproduced hereunder:- "To ' The Honourable Chief Minister Balochistan, ' Subject: PERMISSION TO DEPOSIT THE 5% COST OF LAND ' R/Sir, ' With great profound and humble submission that a piece of land was allotted in favour to the applicant by ExChief Minister, Balochistan during the year, 1997. The rates of said land fixed by Quetta Development Authority. The applicant and Quetta Development Authority agreed on said rates. In this respect a office letter was issued to the applicant (Copy enclosed) for depositing the cost of land according the agreed rates between Q.D.A / applicant.
' Unfortunately, the applicant could not deposit the said cost of land fixed in this behalf. It is, thereof [sic],requested that Director General, Quetta Development Authority may kindly be directed to allow the applicant to deposit the 5% cost of land.
' Thanking you.
' Yours faithfully (SULTAN AHMED)"
' The letter suppressed facts and made false statements. The QDA had decided to evict 'Sultan Ahmed' and there was no agreement on the price of land. Be that as it may, on the above application the Chief Minister on 13th June 2003 wrote to the Director General of QDA:--- "Mr. Sultan Ahmed, resident of Quetta has submitted an application, requesting for allowing him to deposit the cost of plot situated at Overhead Bridge Quetta already allotted to him as per rates agreed vide D.G. QDA letter No, 2-395/ 93(QDA)E(1)/1938 dated 20th August, 1998. Relevant documents attached.
' It is therefore directed that the applicant may be allowed to deposit the cost of the plot as per agreed rates, as its allotment has already been approved by the then Chief Minister Balochistan.
(Jam Muhammad Yousuf) Chief Minster Balochistan"
22. That it is noteworthy that the rates offered six years previously were maintained, despite the fact that the value of the rupee had continuously fallen and the price of land in Quetta had steadily increased. However, 'Sultan Ahmed' still did not make payment and wrote yet another (undated) letter to the Chief Minister stating that, "Unfortunately, the applicant could not deposit the said cost of land" and called upon the Chief Minister, "to allow the applicant to deposit the cost of land "; the letter was written in English and bore an Urdu signature. Once again the Chief Minister obliged, and wrote to the Director General QDA on 23rd August 2004 that, "necessary permission may be granted to applicant to deposit the cost of plot".
"The Supdt:E(C)' then put up the following note on 1st September 2004: "A draft letter addressed to Mr. Sultan Ahmed to deposit the cost of land as under:--- a). For commercial area. Rs, 450/- per Sft. b) For residential area. Rs, 250/- per Sft.
' In this connection it is submitted that a summary was moved to Chief Minister Balochistan elaborating the facts of the case seeking orders on following points:--- a. Whether Chief Minister Balochistan may like to restore the letter dated 20.08.1998 regarding sale'of land as mentioned above.
' OR ' The land be sold out to Mr. Sultan Ahmed on current market rate provided the Governing Body consider and approve the rate.
' The Chief Minister Balochistan has restored the letter dated 20.08.1998 vide summary placed below.
' Accordingly draft is submitted for approval signature please.
' Supdt:E(C).
01.09.2004."
23. That yet another undated summary was submitted to the Chief Minister Balochistan, which concluded as under:--- "Under the above circumstances the Chief Minister may like to restore the offer letter as already approved by the then Chief Minister Balochistan OR land may be sold at current market rate provided the Governing Body consider and approve the rates"
' The Chief Minister wrote the following note which, with the deletions as appearing on the file, is reproduced hereunder:- "para 5 [which is the paragraph reproduced above] to be definitely to be xxxxxxx [deleted] as proposed for xxxx [deleted] for restoration"
24. That thereafter seventeen months expired before the matter was placed for consideration of the Governing Body of QDA; the relevant extracts from 'The Minutes of Special Meeting of Governing Body of QDA under the Chairmanship of Chairman QDA on 28-01-2006' are reproduced:- "The Director General cordially welcomed Mir Maqbool Ahmad Lehri as taking over as Chairman, QDA and participant [sic] in Governing Body meeting as its Chairman for the first time. The DG, QDA also welcomed the Nazim Zarghoon Town for participating [sic] Governing Body meeting as its member for the first time. The DG, QDA also assured his full cooperation to the Chairman and other participants."
' Item No.6 wider the title 'Ex-Agenda Items' is reproduced as under:-- "ITEM NO. 06 ' SUBJECT:- ALLOTMENT OF LAND MEASURING 30492 SQ FT IN FAVOUR OF MR. SULTAN AHMED ADJACENT TO OVERHEAD BRIDGE ZARGHOON ROAD, QUETTA.
' As mentioned in this Authority's letter No. 2395/93(QDA) E(C)/760-62 dated 18.9.2004 (copy enclosed as Annex: I) Mr. Sultan Ahmed was directed to deposit a sum of Rs, 80,65,000/- on account of the cost of land sold to him with the approval of Hon'ble Chief Minister Balochistan (Copy enclosed vide Annex: II). Mr. Sultan Ahmed deposited a sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- within the stipulated period of 3 months leaving a balance of Rs, 78,65,000/-.
2. Mr. Sultan Ahmed vide his application dated 23.12.05 has requested for, permission to deposit the balance cost of land.
3. The matter is placed before the House seeking decision on the following points:--- a) Permission be granted to Mr. Sultan Ahmed to deposit the balance cost of land. b)
Confirmation/approval of orders of the Hon'ble Chief Minister Balochistan for restoration of letter dated 20.8.98."
' And the minutes as recorded read as under:- "Item No.
6. Confirmation of orders of Chief Minister Balochistan - Land of Mr. Sultan Ahmad.
' Decision.
' The House confirmed the directives of Hon'ble Chief Minister Balochistan issued vide U.O No.P.S- CM/1-1/2003/2078 dated 13.06.2003 and U.O. No.PS-CM/1-1/2004 dated 01.9.2004 and also confirmed the letter No. 2395/93(QDA)E(C)/760-62 dated 18-9-2004 issued by QDA. It was further decided that the allottee may deposit the balance cost of land. [and the following is added in hand] as per the directive of the CM."
' The aforesaid discloses that Mr. Maqbool Lehri was Chairman of QDA when the matter of the said land was considered by the Governing Board, therefore, his statement that, "all the process with regard to allotment of land in question and fixation of its price had already been completed by the competent authorities prior to start of tenure of replying respondent i,e, 17th October 2005"
(paragraphs 8, 9 and 13 of his counter affidavit dated 15th October 2012) are clearly false. The same false statement of fact was made by Mr. Maqbool Lehri in his additional counter affidavit filed on 16th July 2014.
' The next point that emerges from the said Minutes is that in the very first meeting that Mr. Maqbool Lehri presided over as Chairman of QDA 'Ex-Agenda Items' were brought for consideration of the Governing Body, which included the matter of the said land. The unusual choice of phraseology that was chosen to describe items that did not form part of the agenda of the meeting was 'Ex-Agenda Items'.
' Item No. 6 of the said 'Ex-Agenda Items' pertained to the said land, but suppressed the earlier decision of the Governing Body of QDA that had been taken in its meeting of 1st April 1999, which had rejected the allotment of the land to 'Sultan Ahmed', and had directed to get "the land occupied illegally by Mr. Sultan Ahmed S/0 Shadi Khan may got vacated with the help of concerned authorities" (decision in respect of item 18 of the agenda). It was also not disclosed that in the same meeting of 1st April 1999 the Governing Body had decided that the said land may be required for "the construction of second phase of the bridge".
25. A purported 'sale deed' was executed in favour of 'Sultan Ahmed' by QDA on 26th April 2007, which was registered on 24th May 2007. The operative part of the sale deed does not contain the particulars of the transaction. The first preamble of the 'sale deed' however states, that:- "Vendor has sold vide Order No. 2-395/93 (QDA)E (C)/1938 dated 20.8.1998 a commercial-cum- residential plots size measuring 30492 square feet, more particularly described in the extract of plan attached at Rs,450/- for commercial & Rs,250/- for residential per sqft. Situated at New Zarghoon Road, Quetta. The Vendee has paid full cost of land amounting to Rs,80,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty lacs only)."
' There is no attachment with the 'sale deed', despite the fact that it referred to an "extract of plan attached" nor have the parties relying thereon produced the same. The 'sale deed' appears to have been prepared on a computer and printed on a computer-printer however the aforesaid highlighted words-"The Vendee has paid full cost of land amounting to Rs,80,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty lacs only)"- are of a different type script. The 'sale deed' does not state how the sale consideration was paid or when.
' That since the 'sale deed' did not specify the land that had been sold a 'deed of rectification' was sought to be executed, to insert the number and the particulars thereof. The Director General QDA vide letter dated 13th February 2010 wrote to the Sub Registrar the following:--- "Subject: ISSUE OF DEED OF RECTIFICATION WITHOUT APPROVAL OF DIRECTOR GENERAL, QDA.
' A deed rectification with no date and number has been issued with signatures of Director Estate (Commercial) of QDA in 2009 making some rectification in the sale deed dated 26th Aril 2007 in connection with sale of a piece of land bearing Khasra No. 2250/517 measuring 30492 sft situated in Mahal Sirki Kalan Tappa Saddar District Quetta (beside Sariab overhead bridge) to Mr. Sultan Ahmed S/o Shadi Khan, which has been submitted in your office on 22-12-2009 (copy enclosed).
2. It is to inform that the above mentioned deed rectification has not been issued with approval of the undersigned as sitting Director General QDA and is therefore not to be entertained. The sale has some doubts and objections which are being re-examined.
' Khudai Rahim Ejbaani ' DIRECTOR GENERAL, QDA"
' It however appears that the Sub-Registrar had already permitted the execution of the deed of the rectification on 22nd December 2009; the deed of the rectification itself however is undated. The rectification sought insertion in the preamble (reproduced above) of the following--- "a) in page No.1, Line No. 19 of the Principal Deed after the words "feet" the words Khasra No. 2250/517, situated in Mahal Sirki Kalan, Tappa Saddar, District Quetta has been inserted ...."
26. That a genuine transaction does not contain contradictions, however, the purported acquisition of the said land by the land-grabber has a number of discrepancies, amongst others as under:-
(a) The application submitted to the Chief Minister dated 1st April 1997 is stated to have been signed by 'Sultan Ahmed', but bears a signature which does not remotely resemble his admitted signatures on record. Mr. Sultan Ahmed has also stated on oath before us that he had not submitted any application.
(b) The undated application of the land-grabber which was attended to by the Chief Minister on 13th June 2003 could not resurrect the purported offer letter of DG QDA dated 20th August 1998 as the Governing Body of QDA had on 1st April 1999 specifically rejected the proposal to transfer the land to 'Sultan Ahmed' and had directed, that, it be got vacated. In any event payment of the land was not made, despite the Chief Minister allowing "to deposit the cost of the plot as per agreed rates".
(c) The land-grabber submitted yet another undated application to the Chief Minister stating that, "Unfortunately, the applicant could not deposit the said cost of land" and called upon the Chief Minister, "to allow the applicant to deposit the cost of land"; and once again the Chief Minister obliged, and wrote to the Director General QDA on 23rd August 2004 that, "necessary permission may be granted to applicant to deposit the cost of plot". The Chief Minister did not have any authority under the QDA Ordinance either to determine the price of land or grant time for its payment. In any event the cost of land which had been 'mutually fixed' six years previously was maintained, despite the fact that the value of the rupee had continuously fallen and the price of land in Quetta had steadily increased. But still payment for the land was not made.
(d) That pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the Chief Minister the matter was not placed before Governing Body of QDA for a period of seventeen months, however, immediately upon Mr. Maqbool Lehri assuming the position of Chairman QDA a 'Special Meeting of Governing Body' was convened on 28th January 2006 where it was 'decided', "that the allottee may deposit the balance cost of land", i,e, at the very same rate as was determined eight years previously. Mr. Maqbool Lehri's statement that he had nothing to do with the allotment of the land to 'Sultan Ahmed' was wrong as the decision was taken in meeting held under his Chairmanship.
(e) The earlier decision of the Governing Body calling for the eviction of 'Sultan Ahmed' from the land was not recalled / revoked nor was it decided by the Governing Body to allot the land to 'Sultan Ahmed'.
(f) That the general power of attorney dated 17th April 2006 was executed by Mr. Sultan Ahmed in favour of Mr. Rustam Khan (respondent No.13) in respect of the said land before it was acquired by Mr. Sultan Ahmed.
(g) That Mr. Sultan Ahmed bought the said land for eight million rupees but sold it for one million and nine hundred thousand.
27. That QDA which is a statutory authority cannot clandestinely hand over a valuable piece of public land to an individual, without publishing advertisements in leading newspapers inviting public offers. Mr. Mohammad Anwar Lehri, the Director General of QDA, had no lequal authority to negotiate a private sale of QDA/government land and his letter dated 20th August 1998 whereby an offer was made to Mr. Sultan Ahmed is of no legal effect. In any event after the issuance of the said offer letter the Governing Body of QDA in its meeting of 1st April 1999 had specifically rejected the proposal to transfer the land to Mr. Sultan Ahmed and had directed, that: "that the land occupied illegally by Mr. Sultan Ahmed S/O Shadi Khan may be got vacated with the help of concerned authorities" (decision on item 18 of the agenda). The Director General of QDA was bound to abide by and implement the decision of the Governing Body, but did not do so. In view of the fact that reference has been made to the Chief Minister's purported exercise of powers one may restate the obvious, that a chief minister is bound to abide by the law, including the QDA Ordinance and he does not have any authority under the QDA Ordinance or otherwise to give away public land to a private party at his whim or to determine the price of such land or to grant/extend time for its payment.
28. That Article 24 of the Constitution of Pakistan protects property rights, and permits compulsory acquisition of property for public purpose upon payment of compensation. Land for the purpose of construction of the bridge over the railway tracks was compulsorily acquired for a public purpose by the Government of Balochistan and such land or any part thereof could then not be sold, allotted, leased or transferred to any private person since it would effectively negate the protection granted by the Constitution and infringe / violate the fundamental right safeguarding private property. Unfortunately, in complete derogation of the constitutional protection and the fundamental rights of the petitioners/their fathers, whilst serving as the Mayor of the Metropolitan Corporation Quetta Mr. Maqbool Lehri leased out the unutilized portion of the said land to 'Sultan Ahmed' for a purported period of thirty years despite the fact that no authority vested either in the Corporation or in its Mayor to do so, and that too and without inviting bids. The only obligation of the purported lessee under the 'lease' was payment of a pittance as yearly rent.
29. That Mr. Maqbool Lehri first as Mayor of the Corporation and then as Chairman of QDA sought to benefit himself or his close family members, when he was holding the public office of Mayor he executed a 'lease' in favour of 'Sultan Ahmed' and when he held the public office of Chairman QDA he had the said land 'sold' to 'Sultan Ahmed'. His first illegal act of leasing the said land was undone by the Administrator of the Corporation who cancelled the said 'lease' and initiated 29. That Mr. Maqbool Lehri first as Mayor of the Corporation and then as Chairman of QDA sought to benefit himself or his close family members, when he was holding the public office of Mayor he executed a 'lease' in favour of 'Sultan Ahmed' and when he held the public office of Chairman QDA he had the said land 'sold' to 'Sultan Ahmed'. His first illegal act of leasing the said land was undone by the Administrator of the Corporation who cancelled the said 'lease' and initiated 30. That Mr. Sultan Ahmed who had ostensibly 'purchased' the said land vide 'sale deed' dated 26th April 2007 had executed a general power of attorney in favour of Mr. Rustam Khan (respondent No.13) on 17th April 2006, which was registered by the Sub-Registrar on 18th April 2006, i,e, almost a year before he himself became the 'owner' thereof. That the said general power of attorney authorized Mr. Rustam Khan, the first cousin of Mr. Maqbool Lehri, to deal with the said land as he deemed fit including selling it. The execution of the general power of attorney by Mr. Sultan Ahmed before the execution of the 'sale deed' by him suggests that the person or persons who had the real interest in the land wanted to safeguard himself/themselves in case Mr. Sultan Ahmed claimed the land as his own.
The land as described in the power of attorney was in two categories, respectively 1,710 square feet designated as 'commercial' and 28,782 square feet designated as 'residential', total constituting 30,492 square feet. Mr. Rustam Khan, pursuant to the said general power of attorney, sold the entire 30,492 square feet of land for 19 lacs to three persons namely Mr. Mehmood Khan (respondent No.10), Mr. Abid Hussain (respondent No.11) and Mr. Haseeb Ahmed (respondent No.12) as depicted in mutation No. 4610 dated 2nd December, 2011. It is significant that the said land which had been purchased for eight million rupees was sold a few years later for one million and nine hundred thousand rupees only, i,e, less than twenty percent of its acquisition price. The pivotal role played by Mr. Maqbool Lehri in obtaining the land for 'Sultan Ahmed', the execution of the general power of attorney by Mr. Sultan Ahmed (before the execution of sale deed in his favour), the fact that it was sold for less than twenty percent of its acquisition price, the fact that the land was 'sold' by Mr. Sultan Ahmed to the close relatives of Mr. Maqbool Lehri, the filing of the suit by Mr. Sultan Ahmed (after the Corporation instituted criminal proceedings), the suit's withdrawal and Mr. Sultan Ahmed's categorical statement that he had no interest therein conclusively establish that the 'sale' in favour of Mr. Sultan Ahmed was a sham and that the real interest in the land was of Mr. Maqbool Lehri and or his brother/cousins. As to whether the brother/cousins of Mr. Maqbool Lehri held the said land for themselves or for the benefit of Mr. Maqbool Lehri makes little difference since the leasing of the land in favour of Mr. Sultan Ahmed by the Corporation and thereafter the executing of the 'sale deed' in his favour by QDA were both ill egal. The counsel for Mr. Maqb000l Lehri, his brother and cousins simply alleged that all these were mere coincidences, without offering a satisfactory explanation let alone a plausible one. Mr. Maqbool Ahmed first in his capacity as Mayor and then as Chairman of QDA used his position and influence to hand a valuable piece of public land to private parties who were his close relatives.
31. That section 113 of the QDA Ordinance (reproduced above) stipulates that if QDA decides to sell or lease land that had been acquired from any person "it shall give notice through advertisement in newspapers published in the Quetta City", where after QDA must "offer to the person or persons, from whom the land has been acquired, or their heirs, executors or administrators, a prior right to lease or purchase such land, at rate to be fixed by the Authority", and only after it had first determined "that such lease or sale is in the public interest." However, no publication was made in any newspaper, nor an offer was made to the petitioners or their fathers and no determination made that the sale of the said land was in the public interest. Therefore, for such reasons too the purported sale of the said land was illegal. Mr. Muhammad Arshad Chaudhary Advocate responded by stating that since the land was acquired by the Government of Balochistan the provisions of section 113 of the QDA Ordinance were not applicable, as the owner of the land was the Government of Balochistan and not QDA. However, the ingenuity of the learned counsel's argument is destructive of his clients' right to the land, because if the contention is accepted then QDA had no authority to sell the land or execute the 'sale deed' which forms the basis of his clients claim to the land.
32. That if we assume that the owner of the said land was the Government then the learned Assistant Advocate General's contention that the land was sold in contravention of the Balochistan Land Lease Policy of 2000 (hereinafter "the Land Lease Policy") is correct. The Land Lease Policy was made pursuant to subsection (2) of the section 10 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 and published in The Balochistan Gazette of 1st December 2000. Clause 4 (2) of the Land Lease Policy prescribes, that, "All state land falling within 5 miles of the limits of Municipal Committee/ Municipal Corporation and within 3 miles of Town Committee will be reserved for future utilization."
In view of the fact that the said land was situated well within such limits the said land had to be kept in reserve for the City's use, and could not be allotted/leased/sold. The Land Lease Policy further stipulates in clause 3 (2) that land can only be leased provided it was not required for "public buildings and other public sector projects", and had to be transferred to the concerned local authority, in this case the Corporation, which would then be "utilized after preparing a proper scheme and by-laws prescribed for the same in the prescribed manner" by the Corporation. The maximum duration of a lease issued under the Land Lease Policy is for a period of thirty years (sub-clause (1) of clause 5) and "the rate of lease money per year will be determined by the Committee keeping in view the market value/performance" (sub-clause (2) of clause 5). The Land Lease Policy further requires that "the highest standards of transparency will be ensured" and "after giving due publicity" (sub-clause (3) of clause 5) and, that the lease money is to be charged "as per market value or through the process of auction" (sub-clause(4) of clause 5). Clause 10 of the Land Lease Policy prohibits the assignment, subletting or transfer of the leased land or any part thereof by the lessee. The authority designated for leasing of land is the "Collector as .Defined in the Land Revenue Act, 1967" (clause 16)..
33. That Mr. Muhammad Arshad Chaudhary Advocate's submission that the Government (and not QDA) was the owner of the land is also self-destructive of any claims or rights to the said land that his clients or their predecessor-in-interest (Mr. Sultan Ahmed) may have, because the Government could only divest the land in accordance with the said Land Lease Policy and virtually every provision of the Land Lease Policy was contravened as listed hereinafter: Firstly, only the Collector was authorized to divest the land (and not QDA). Secondly, a sale deed could not be executed.
Thirdly, the maximum duration that the land could have been leased for was thirty years. Fourthly, the lease charges were to be in accordance with market value determined by the said committee.
Fifthly, transparency and publicity had to be ensured. Sixthly, land situated within the stipulated limits of the city could not be leased and had to be reserved for use of the city. Seventhly, if the land had been leased it could not be transferred by the lessee. Consequently, neither Mr. Sultan Ahmed nor those who purportedly purchased the land from him can lay any claim to the land as it was 'acquired' in complete contravention of the Land Lease Policy and the applicable law. It is further observed that the said land was initially 'leased' by the Corporation and subsequently 'sold' by QDA by circumventing the collector and the Board of Revenue, through which the Government is required to act in respect of its land.
34. We therefore have no hesitation in holding that sale / transfer of the said land to 'Sultan Ahmed'
(respondent No. 9) vide sale deed dated 26th April 2007, which was registered on 23rd May 2007, and execution of undated deed of rectification, which was registered on 22nd December 2009, are illegal, unconstitutional and of no legal effect and deemed never to have been executed. The subsequent sale / transfer of the said land to respondent Nos. 10 to 12 is also declared to be illegal, unconstitutional and of no legal effect.
35. The question which remains for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled to receive back the land that was compulsorily acquired from their fathers. In this regard the learned counsel for the petitioners placed relidnce on section 113 of the QDA Ordinance, but to attract the said section "notice through advertisement in newspapers" bids must first have been made, which has not been done in this case, where after the land is to be offered "to the person or persons, from whom the land has been acquired, or their heirs, executors or administrators, a prior right to lease or purchase such land, at rate to be fixed by the Authority", which implies that the price of the land on which it is offered to those from whom it was acquired or their heirs should not be less than the highest offer that is received. However, an important precondition that has to be met before the land is offered for sale is to determine "that such lease or sale is in the public interest." However, land in Quetta City is extremely scarce and there is virtually no land available to provide for much needed public services, including for emergency services, parks, roads, pavements, open areas and parking. In view of this acute shortage of land in the City the precondition that the sale of the same would be in the public interest is a determination which can not be reasonably arrived at.
The Governing Body of QDA in its meeting of 1st April 1999 was also of the view that the said land may be required for, "The construction of second phase of the bridge..." (decision on item No. 18 of the agenda). Mr. Abdul Latif who ably argued the case on behalf of the Government also stated that the said land was required for the City's needs. And as stated above the Land Lease Policy also does not permit the transfer of such land. We may also mention that admittedly the female heirs of the fathers have not filed the petition nor have they been arrayed as parties hereto, and the prayer in the petition does not envisage or accept their right/entitlement to the land.
36. We therefore allow the petition only to the extent that that sale / transfer of the said land to 'Sultan Ahmed' (respondent No. 9) vide sale deed dated 26th April 2007, which was registered on 23rd May 2007, the execution of the undated deed of rectification, which was registered on 22nd December 2009, and the said lands subsequent sale / transfer to respondent Nos. 10 to 12, including Mutation No. 4610 dated 2nd December 2011, is illegal, unconstitutional and of no legal effect.
Consequently, the said land must be immediately resumed by the Government of Balochistan and preserved. It is further declared that the said land should not be sold, transferred or alienated in favour of any person. The said land may however be utilized for the construction of the second phase of the bridge if so required or used for the widening of the approach roads to the bridge or utilized for any other public purpose by the Government itself or through the Quetta Development Authority or Metropolitan Corporation Quetta.
37. The Sub Registrar Quetta is directed to cancel the sale deed dated 26th April 2007, which was registered on 23rd May 2007, and undated deed of rectification, which was registered on 22nd December 2009. The respondent Nos. 10 to 12 are directed to surrender the originals of the said sale deed and the deed of rectification to the concerned Sub Registrar, who upon receipt thereof shall keep the same in his record after endorsing thereon in red ink `cancelled' pursuant to this judgment. The concerned Tehsildar (respondent No. 7) is directed to cancel all the mutations in respect of the said land made in favour of respondent Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12, including Mutation No.4610 dated 2nd December 2011.
38. That in view of the fact that the respondent Nos. 8, 10, 11 and 12 put up a false defence and wasted considerable time we are constrained to impose costs in the sum of fifty thousand rupees on each one of them (total amounting to two hundred thousand rupees) and direct that such costs be paid to the petitioners within one week since it is through the efforts of the petitioners that a valuable piece of public land has been saved. We also take this opportunity to commend Mr. Nadir All Chalgari in arguing his case in a forthright manner.
39. The Registrar of this Court is directed to return to NAB the Quetta Development Authority's file provided to this court by NAB bearing No.2-395/93(QDA)E/C titled "Allotment of plot to Mr. Sultan Ahmed overhead bridge Sariab Road Quetta" after retaining a complete photocopy thereof.
40. That office is directed to send copies of this judgment to the Sub Registrar Quetta and to respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7 for compliance of paragraph thirty seven (37) above. Office should also send copies of this judgment to the Chief Secretary Balochistan;s- Senior Member Board of Revenue, Metropolitan Corporation Quetta and Quetta Development Authority with a view to provide guidance about what not to do with public land and how to safeguard it from encroachers and land-grabbers. Writ accordingly. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.