' MUHAMMAD YOUNIS THAHEEM, J.---Dost Muhammad, petitioner, seeks constitutional jurisdiction of this Court praying:-- ' "that on acceptance of this writ petition this Honourable Court may graciously be pleased to declare the impugned acts of the respondents as without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Further, the respondents may be directed to act in the matter in accordance with law and not to arrest the petitioner without legal justification."
2. Brief facts of the case are that one Anwar Khan son of Sharif Khan managed to obtain Government land measuring 28 Kanals 01 Marla situated in Mouza Shah Dhand pertaining to Khata No,979/1627, 978/1621-1623 on lease for a period of one year only. Then Fazal Qadeem son of Abdul Hakim Khan, co-accused succeeded to get ex-parte decree in Civil Suit No,319/1 in his favour of the same leased government land (hearinafter called leased land) and then Fazal Qadeem transferred 2 Kanals out of same leased land to his wife through a registered deed No,276 attested on 23.01.1992 and co-accused Fazal Qadeem and his wife instituted another Civil Suit No,469/1 against D.G. Project Management Unit and others for declaration of said leased land of their ownership and obtained another ex-parte decree on 04.07.1996 from the Civil Court, Peshawar and then Fazal Qadeem got registered the same leased land in his favour vide registered deed No, 525 shown to be attested on 15.02.2005 and lastly Jehan Alam got ex-parte decree in his favour in Civil Suit No,849/1 dated 09.07.2008.
3. It is pertinent to mention here that along with this petition record of any above mentioned first lease mutation, ex-parte decree dated 20.11.1991 in Civil Suit No,319/1, registered deed No, 276 dated 23.01.1992, second ex-parte decree in Civil Suit No, 469/1 dated 04.07.1996 registered deed No, 525 dated 15.02.2005 and another ex-parte decree in Civil Suit No, 849/1 dated 09.07.2008 in favour of Jehan Alam and other record pertaining to investigation conducted by respondent No,3 has not been annexed with this petition.
4. However, relying on facts narrated in the petition and available record this Court reaches to the conclusion that D.G. NAB, Peshawar (respondent No,2) had issued warrant of arrest against the co- accused Khalid Saleem the then DOR/Registrar Peshawar and Mian Samiullah Jan, Ex-Sub Registrar who were arrested and Reference has been filed against all accused including petitioner on 12.10.2015 before the learned Court of Administrative Judge, Accountability, Peshawar who entrusted the same Reference for adjudication to the learned Accountability; Court-III, Peshawar and the Court seized of the matter directed Investigation Officer/respondent No,3 to put forth explanation as to why he has not arrested the petitioner and one other accused namely Fazal Qadeem vide his order dated 03.11.2015 impugned herein and present petitioner is aggrieved of the same order and has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court for interference by seeking relief to declare the impugned order dated 03.11.2015 as against law, null and void, without lawful authority.
5. As the order of learned Accountability Court-III dated 03.11.2015 has been challenged, therefore, it would be beneficial to reproduce the same which is as under:-- ' Order Sheet No,2 dated 03.11.2015 of Reference. No,7 ' "Reference against accused 1 ... Khalid Saleem son of Amir Sardar Khan, Ex-DOR/Registrar, Peshawar R/O House No, 75, Sector E-1, Street No, 4, Phase-1, Hayatabad, Peshawar, 2 ... Mian Samiullah Jan son of Mian Bismillah Jan, Ex-Sub Registrar Peshawar R/O Mian House Mohallah Qaid Abad No,2, Mardan Charsadda, 3 ... Fazal Qadeem son of Abdul Hakeem, RIO House No,3, Angor Masjid, Talab Road, Nothia Peshawar and 4 ... Dost Muhammad son of Pir Muhammad, Ex-Sub Registrar, RIO House No 75, Sector F-4 Street No, 8, Phase-6, Hayatabad, Peshawar is received from the Court of learned Administrative Judge Accountability Courts, Peshawar. Be registered.
' Perusal of record reveals that the above mentioned four accused are charged in the instant case out of whom two of the accused namely Khalid Saleem and Samiullah Jan were arrested who are behind the bars whereas the remaining two accused namely Fazal Qadeem and Dost Muhammad against whom a prima facie case exists were neither arrested nor a warrant under section 204, Cr.P.C. Has been issued against them, therefore, the I.O. Is directed to explain the legal position of the aforesaid two accused till tomorrow i.e, 04.11.2015. "
6. Preliminary arguments heard, available record, narrations in the petition perused and considered.
7. From the perusal of record it reveals that government land measuring 28 Kanals and 01 Marla, Mouza Shah Dhand, Peshawar as detailed above has been shown initially leased to one Anwar Khan son of Sharif Khan only for one year. The same leased land has been shown to be decreed in favour of one Fazal Qadeem and same Fazal Qadeem afterward transferred 02 Kanals of land out of total leased land to his wife and then both once again succeeded to get ex-parte declaratory decree of same leased land of their ownership and was further passed on from accused Fazal Qadeem to one Jehan Alam vide another ex-parte decree in Civil Suit No, 849/1 dated 09.07.2009
8. Prima facie it transpires that it is a case about grabbing of government land which initially had been managed to get it through lease for only one year and then was transferred from one person to other through above discussed means and manner.
9. From the perusal of impugned order dated 03.11.2015 it divulges that direction has been given to the I.O. (respondent No,3) to explain the legal position as to why he has not arrested the accused/petitioner and other co-accused Fazal Qadeem and when query was put to the learned counsel as to whether petitioner has been with NAB custody or in jail, the learned counsel candidly submitted that up till now petitioner has not so far been arrested rather apprehends arrest.
10. This Court is of the firm view that investigation is the job of concerned investigating agency but whenever observes that investigation is neither fair nor genuine, then the learned trial Court can direct the investigation officer to put forth explanation about the genuiness and fairness of investigation as entire case rests upon it as land was first leased out to one Anwar Khan for one year by the then Revenue Officer or other officers how high in hierarchy they are whether were associated to investigation or not.
11. We are of the view that the learned trial Court had only directed the respondent No,3 to explain the legal position vide order dated 03.11.2015 as to why proceedings against the two accused under the relevant law were not initiated. The learned trial Court is vested with power to seek explaination from the I.O. Regarding lapses and defects in the investigation conducted by him.
' The order sheet dated 04.11.2015 further depict that the petitioners were summoned to appear before the Court on 10.11.2015. No adverse action has been taken against them till date nor they have been issued any call-up letter or warrant of arrest.
12. Thus, after hearing preliminary arguments, we hold that the learned Accountability Court-HI below vide order dated 03.11.2015 for seeking explanation from respondent No,3 about not arresting the other two accused and summoned the petitioners has committed no illegality, thus the impugned orders are lawful, with lawful authority and needs no consideration for interference.
Thus, the instant petition with above observations stands dismissed in limine.
' Needless to mention that the NAB authorities while taking any adverse action against the petitioners, shall strictly act in accordance with law.