ORDER MIAN GHULAM AHMAD, J.- By the present order I propose to dispose of together Writ Petition No. 11893 of 1994 and Crl. Org.72-c-1994, Mian Muhammad Usman being the petitioner and officers of the Lahore Development Authority being the respondents SHO P.S. Firdous Market, Lahore and the SSP Lahore having additionally been arrayed as co-respondents in the writ petition. These are briefly the facts, forming basis of the grievances ventilated and the prayers made by the petitioner:-
2. Mian Muhammad Akbar father of Mian Muhammad Usman petitioner was owner of a substantial holding in the revenue estate of. Ichhra Lahore in which was included the Abadi of The Muhammadi Kot, situate in Khasra No. 2557. According to WAJIBUL ARZ of the village, the owners of the estate were entitled to construct houses in the land of Abadi Deh, and person raising such construction was to be considered to have become owner of the same. About 730 years ago, Mian Muhammad Akbar raised a residential accommodation and also built 27 shops. House was shown in the MUSAWI of village Ichhra prepared in the year 1940. Lahore Improvement Trust, and its successor body, Lahore Development Authority, planned a residential scheme, known as Gulberg-III but Khasra No.2557 (as averred by the petitioner) was not acquired nor possessed by the Authority, for the purpose. The petitioner, However, was given an impression that the aforesaid structures were going to be treated in the nature of encroachment by the Lahore Development Authority Apprehending mischief, the petitioner claims to have filed a Civil Suit in order to have the Authority restrained from interfering with his possession and demolishing any portion of the construction, pleading that the same plainly belonged to him and did not vest in the Lahore Development Authority, considered from any angle. Application for ad-interim injunction submitted with the suit, was allowed by Mr. Tafiq Iftikhar Ahmad, Civil Judge, Lahore by an order made on 10-5-1992, which order was appealed against by the Lahore Development Authority and the appeal is presently pending in the court of learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore, Khawaja Muhammad Sharif.
3. On the night between 8/9-9-1994, the officers and employees of the Lahore Development Authority accompanied by magistrate and police force, in consequence of some pre-planned conspiracy criminally trespassed into the premises and demolished the entire structure, house as wetting stop and plundered the whole material would about two Crores of rupees. The material, broadly speaking consisted of 30 lacs bricks, 140 iron girders, 32 wooden doors, 14 wooden windows, 40 steel shutters and 13 fully grown-up Shisham trees, besides other articles. The LDA people, according to the petitioner, were fully aware that they had no concern with nor any control over the construction as also the land underneath, and they all had also the knowledge that a stay order issued by the civil court was holding the field. They had no right and no authority in law to vanquish the small 'estate' of the petition, who had become its owner, on the death of his father in the year 1984.
3. Mian Muhammad Usman petitioner pleads, he is a very respectable citizen, a prominent member of Jamaat-e-Islamic, twice elected MNA from an important constituency of Lahore. Mr. Manzoor Malik, ex-Director General of the Lahore Development Authority had, in an extremely irregular and avaricious manner, got allotted in the name of his were a plot in Sharif Park Ichhra, for a petty amount of Rs.30,000/-,which was sold away for a huge amount of Rs.48 lacs. His bail petition pending before Mr Justice Muhammad Amir Malik (as he then was) was strenuously opposed by the petitioner who suo moto appeared in the Court and made disclosure of true facts.
Mr. Malik nursed extreme grudge against him and as he had been Director General LDA for a number of years, the officers loyal to him mid belonging to his group at his instance might have been on the look out to avenge the colossal loss caused to him by the petitioner. This is one possibility. The petitioner is known for his volatile temperament and has been worst critic of Government policies in the National Assembly. Under-hand object could be to drive him into a state of grave provocation, evoke a sharp retaliation and invite an armed conflict, and making the same an excuse land a crack-down on him and inflict an inconceivable injury a crushing show down on his party (Jamaat-e-Islamic),which has adopted an openly hostile posture against the Government in saddle, and Ameer of which docs not loose a moment in severely criticising the party in-power and its leader. Whatever be the background and the objective under-lying this momentous and monstrous operation carried out in true enemy any style, it cannot be disputed, it is vigorously urged by the petitioner, that the respect and reputation he commanded has been reduced to its lowest ebb, as those to whom he is known have been made to think that he has become absolutely in effective. It was allegedly an open display of extreme gangsters and the LDA people conducted themselves in a wholly despotic and dictatorial manner as if they were answerable to none and there were not ethical standards, no rules and regulations and no legal norms, to be followed by them. The acts performed by them were highly heinous and grossly criminal in nature. The operation continued through out the day (Friday),and lot many gun-men were engaged therein. The population in the vicinity was immensely horrified and no one w4s permitted to come close to the site. The petitioner somehow became aware of it, and much against his temperament, he kept up patience and did not resort to active resistance, because that would have amounted to taking the law into one's hands which course he did not want to pursue, although the diabolic action performed by the Lahore Development Authority fully Justified re-action of the same kind on his part.
4. The petitioner claims to have addressed complaints to the SSP, Lahore with copies to the President of Pakistan, the Prime Minister, the Punjab Chief Minister, the Home Secretary and the I.G.
Police, Punjab. He also approached the local SHO, respondent No. 1 but without any response, throughout this period. The petitioner even states to have personally presented an application in the office of the SSP(respondent No.2),who marked it to the SP (Admin), who for warded it to the SP Model Town, where it was personally handed over, and it was diaries there on 3-10-1994. No action however, is said to have been initiated so far against the wrong-doers. In their comments, the SSP and the SHO have made a denial of the same but I do not think that it is possible for the petitioner to indulge in false-hood in that behalf. It appears that the SHO and the SSP, respondents No.1 & 2 in the writ petition, have resorted to sheer untruthfulness in giving lie to the fact of their having been in receipt of com plaints/applications made by the petitioner in regard to the incident in question.
They have, however, undertaken that they will register a case, if on the basis of information laid before them by the petitioner, commission of cognizable offences is made out. One can hardly doubt the existence and availability of valid and vigorous premises causing extreme grouse to the petitioner by reason of truly culpable acts performed by them in relation to the property of the petitioner,wholly justifying registration of a criminal case against them at the instance of the petitioner and I would direct them to perform their duty cast upon them by law, by taking down the statement of the complainant under section 154 Cr.P.C. Register a case with all the offences prima facie made out, investigate it in right earnest and report against those really at fault, how high so ever, and how so ever formidable may be the pressure exerted upon them. It will indeed be a test of effectiveness, impartiality and independence of the police agency. With these observations and directions , I would dispose of the writ petition as having borne fruit.
5. In so far as criminal original is concerned, the facts, background and the incident being the same, I need not repeat those. In their para were comments, as also the reply of the respondents (in this petition), all LDA officers have through their learned counsel, controverted the claim of the petitioner to be the lawful owner of the site maintaining that the same has its location in Khasra No. 2511, instead of khasra No. 2557, adding that the encroachments have been removed from the former field which stood acquired by the Lahore Development Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, drawn attention of the Court to the fact that the respondents have not refuted the assertions made by the petitioner, embodied in paras 7 to 10. It is pointed out that khasra No.22511 has an area of about 8 marlas only, which could hardly house the two bungalow and 27 shops. Area of khasra No. 2557 is 101 kanals out of which 7-1/2 Kanals of land are covered by the construction that was raised about 73 years before. At least house originally built then. The MASAWI of the year 1940 has been tendered by the petitioner in support of his plea, and it has also been averred that the property had been given regular numbers by the Excise and Taxation Department. One fails to follow how would it be possible for the respondents to say, as they appeared to do, that the petitioner, because of his dominance had been able to secure from the Department undue favour. Letter addressed by the petitioner's father Mian Muhammad Akbar and his brother Mian Muhammad Aslam on 7-3- 1958 has been placed on record by the respondents to show that amongst other owners of the land, they had also been compensated in the shape of 'exempted plots when their lands had been acquired through negotiation. By reference to the same letter, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Mian Muhammad Akbar and Mian Muhammad Aslam had actually reminded the Town Planner of the Lahore Improvement Trust of the undertaking given by him that their kothi would-be excluded from the site, which was to be covered by the road to be carved out through their land, from which fact it would follow that even at that time the owners were not agreeable to acquisition of their land for any housing scheme, and they were not prepared to accept demolition of a part of their structure for any purpose including construction of a road by the Lahore Improvement Trust. Learned counsel for the respondents lias in the para were comments made some material assertions as regards the conditions of WAJIBUL ARZ and their applicability to the site in dispute as also their reputability and on the basis of the same he seems to be justified in urging that the petition raises controversial questions of facts and law, which would be adjudicated upon in due course by the civil court. He has also referred to entries in the revenue record, the Masawi and the (sic) in bringing home his point that the petitioner's claim is not all clear .There is no denying the fact that final determination in that behalf will be made by the civil court, where the suit instituted by Mian Muhammad Usman is stated to be pending.
6. According to the respondents, the structures which have been demolished were on the land, outside the concentrated abadi which was (sic) Shamlat Deh, which belonged to all the proprietors in the revenue estate, including non-muslims, on whose exit, on Independence the same came to be vested in Lahore Improvement Trust, followed by Lahore Development Authority when the evacuee lands also were acquired even on death of Mian Muhammad Akbar, his estate would have developed on his sons and daughters all, and Mian Muhammad Usman alone could not succeed to it, according to the respondents' counsel. These amongst other contentions raised by the learned counsel relate to the merits of the case and will be examined and adjudicated upon, when the suit is finally decided.
7. It is not denied that a stay order had been issued by the civil court, on the asking of the plaintiff petitioner. According to the respondents, the same did not pertain to Khasra No. 2511, the site of structures in question. It has however been the stand-point of the petitioner throughout that his houses and shops were situate in Khasra No.2557, covering an area of 7-1/2 Kanals. One kanal strip of land from this khasra, had also been acquired, the same being khasra No.2557/1 at a distance of about two furlongs from the construction in question. It is maintained that it was not an un- authorised construction, liable to demolition. The respondents state that a notice was got published in Daily Jang and Nawa-i- Waqt, calling upon the members of the public to vacate all LDA lands and sites and to remove all un-authorised structures. It will not be disputed that publication of notice/intimation by any Government Department or Corporate Body in newspapers would not assume the form of a legal provision, having sanction of law it will only be a one-sided assertion, uni-lateral intention of a public functionary, autonomous or semi-autonomous body. Did the respondents care to serve the petitioner with a show-cause notice?. Was he ever heard before a decision was taken to annihilate his property? The answer will be 'No'. Well, if Mian Muhammad Usman is found to have no locus-standi to file a civil suit, and if he is not able to establishments claim, on the strength of evidence he will be non-suited but so long as the suit is pending, and there is a stay order granted by a competent court, also in force, no body has a right to ignore it.
The respondents, as defendants in the suit were duty-bound to obey the order, in letter and spirit. It is not understandable as to where was the hurry and why did not the LDA people wait for the result of the appeal against the trial court's stay order, or till final disposal of the suit itself. Some body, amongst them, appears to have got it into his head that, by taking all others with him, he could show to the world that the LDA was a very powerful body and could go to any extent, and the orders of the court were not worth the paper on which the same were written. This is height of intransigence and recalcitrance on the part of the Authorities of the LDA, who cannot possibly take up the plea that they were ignorant of the stay order of the civil court. The LDA having itself gone in appeal against the said stay order, it will be entirely in-apt on the part of the respondents to take up such an absurd stand. The facts and circumstances of the case all unmistakably indicate that a conscious and conspired effort was made to adopt a thorough by mala fide, malicious and malignant attitude towards the petitioner, in a stupid bid to give display of their vigor and strength by the Lahore Development Authority, in clearly and contemptuously flouting the stay order. Now they are trying to say, exactly the 'reverse' of which they had planned to do and also show it to the petitioner and the people around, if not to the entire population of the metropolitan city of Lahore.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents concedes that the High Court does not lack the Jurisdiction to proceed in the matter but he has laid emphasis on what is known as 'Judicial Restraint' which has generally to be exercised and the matter has to be left to the court which is seized of the civil suit. Unless it is a case gross violation of an order of an 'inferior' court, the High Court normally should decline to exercise its extra-ordinary powers in. Punishing an alleged infringement of an order of a court subordinate to it. It will not be possible for the learned counsel for the respondents to deny that all the houses and shops belonging to the petitioner had completely been erased, which incidence is also supported by dear photographs of the site, showing bulldozers, trucks and vans, engaged in the operation, and the LDA officers are also seen to be present on the scene. It will also not be not possible to give a lie to the fact that the whole material had been removed from the site, leaving it look like a wholly desolate place, as if it was a war-shattered, a 'conquered' area.
Extent to the rampage resorted to and the quantum of the damage caused would be immeasurable indeed it is two crore rupees, according to the petitioner. It is again a fact that all this has been done during subsistence of a stay order. Deliberate dis-obedience of the same, in the manner it has been done, must be taken to be in the nature of a highly culpable and criminal act on the part of the respondents, who must not be allowed to a escape the punishment, they deserve, commensurate with the dimensions of the defiance. It was all calculated to undermine the authority of the court, and the 'operation' was planned and executed in a manner, as if the LDA, as a body had suffered some serious set-back or an irretrievable injury to its ego or self-respect, at the hands of some civil Judge, and they were bent upon taking revenge from the 'system so as to teach the courts a lesson and deter them, for all times to come, from passing stay orders against the Lahore Development Authority. Well, this Court will be failing in its duty if it docs not take notice of such an ugly situation and omits to protect a court functioning under its superintendence.
People and public functionaries have to be taught to bow before the authority of the court and give full respect to the process of the court, to ignore or flout which the respondents have skilfully acted, in the instant case. I am fully conscious of the limitations of the civil court and have an idea that the Civil Judge may not be able to handle the situation and 'deliver the goods'. It is also possible that all the respondents might not have acted alike, and their individual liability for disobedience of the orders of the court will have to be determined, in the light of the evidence, which the petitioner will be called upon to adduce in proof of the allegations, so confidently and vividly levelled by him.
The stay order of the civil court may be affirmed or vacated in appeal. That apart, it was have holding the field, when it was violated by the respondents who thus exposed themselves to a legal action of most stringent order.
9. I positively feel that certain measure of relief ought to be afforded to the person, who has not most extensively been wronged. He had also made a request in Court that he be allowed to erect a boundary wall around the site where his houses and shops were situate and were dis-mantled, just three months ago. He fears that wanton act of the LDA people has visibly encouraged/mischief mongers and wrong doers and some of them putting up in the vicinity may be induced to clamp their unlawful possession upon certain strips of land here &nd there. At his on risk and cost the petitioner is permitted to enclose the area, exactly the same which was in his possession or in his dominion, prior to the LDA operation by raising a wall, but excluding the road terrain.
10. I am not aware whether the Civil Judge, who had passed the order, while disposing of the application under Order 39, rules 1 & 2, C.P.C, is still posted at Lahore. In view of the importance of the matter, I would entrust the case to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahore, who will proceed with it in accordance with law. He is, however, directed to initially take up the application submitted by the plaintiff-petitioner, for action against the delinquents/law- breakers, for the alleged contempt of court. This Court generally avoid taking down evidence in such matters and this exercise shall to undertaken by the lower court, whereafter it shall be remitted to this Court for orders. The case is pretty important and the suit also shall be- disposed of finally, before' the summer vaCations.
Unnecessary adjournments shall be avoided, and if an adjournment is un-avoidable, it shall be of shortest possible duration. Evidence in the contempt of court matter shall be recorded in entirety, within a maximum period of six weeks, excluding the winter spell. The parties have been directed to appear in the lower court on 18-12-1994. A copy of the criminal original, with copies of para were comments/petitioner's rejoinder along with copies of all annexures as also a copy of this order, shall be transmitted to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Lahore, without delay.
11. This disposes of for the present, criminal original No.72-C/1994 as well. It will be taken up again on receipt of the evidence of the parties, which the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahore has been asked to take down.