GHULAM NABI SOOMRO, J.--- The facts giving rise to this petition filed by these eleven petitioners are that they own and ' possess property shown by them in paragraph No. 3 of the petition consisting of agricultural lands, houses, ,plots, cattle farms, tractors with trolleys, prize bonds and other movable and immovable properties in Karachi and other places of Sindh. The petitioners in the abovesaid paragraph of the petition are shown to be related to Abdul Satter Dero as mother, brothers, sons, daughters and wife, all kith and kin of Dero, the former Director-General, Port Qasim Authority, Karachi presently ,facing prosecution before the Accountability Court-IV, Karachi. The petitioners in their petition have challenged the order dated 3.8.2000 passed by the NAB (respondent No. 2) whereunder the above stated properties of the petitioners have been freezed.
2. It is inter alia prayed that the properties included in the charge framed against Abdul Satter Dero be excluded as being owned by the petitioners, restrain the Accountability Court (respondent 3) from proceedings with the trail of Dero' to the extent of the petitioners' properties, and render any finding thereof and suspend the impugned order dated 3.8.2000 and lastly declare Section 5 of the NAB Ordinance as unconstitutional and void.
3. Besides this petition, all the petitioners have filed separate suits before this Court on the original Side against the Federal Government, Accountability Bureau, Federal Investigating Agency and the Mukhtiar kar, Taluka Tando Allahyar.
4. In the suits, the plaintiffs (the petitioners herein) have claimed the properties shown in this petition at para. 3 to be their own properties and sought almost similar relief of Declaration and Injunction. In the suits the petitioners have been granted interim relief by restraining the defendants from dispossessing the petitioners/plaintiffs otherwise than due course of law.
5. It may be pertinent that the impugned order dated 3.8.2000 have also been prayed to be suspended in the suits.
6. The petitioners in the Reference No: 7(64)/2000 and Court Reference No. 15/2000 pending trial before the Accountability Court-IV, Karachi, are shown as Benamidars in the abovesaid properties, having no rights in the said properties.
7. Charge under Section 10 of the NAB Ordinance, 1999 against Abdul Satter Dero has been framed on 8.4.000 wherein Dero has been accused of accumulating wealth to the tune of Rs.204.83 millions as against his house in native town ()amber (District Larkana) and prize bonds worth Rs.50,000 only in his declaration of assets Form at the time of his joining service in 1994.
8. The case has also proceeded before the Accountability Court (respondent 3) against Dero and others and prosecution witnesses examined.
9. The petitioners on the basis of their documents annexed with the petition have claimed that they are the lawful, exclusive owners of the .Properties in their own exclusive rights with their names duly mutated in revenue records and other records maintained by the Government. They pay income- tax, wealth tax, Dhal and others taxes. On their properties.
10. The respondent No. 2 NAB, after service of notice of the petition, filed in Court a statement through Mr. M. Anwar Tariq, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General Accountability which was taken on record and copy supplied to the petitioners' learned counsel.
11. In view, of statement of NAB, which is in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of NAB Ordinance, the impugned order dated 3.8.2000 passed by the Chairman, NAB had effect only for a period of 30 days. In view of the statement, the impugned order ibid is no more in the field and not in operation after expiry of 30 days.
Section 12(c) of the NAB Ordinance reads as under:-
(i) by taking possession; or
(ii) by appointment of receiver; or
(iii) by prohibiting the payment of rent or delivery of property to the accused or to any other person on his behalf; or
(iv) by all or any of such methods as the Chairman, NAB or the Court may deem fit: Provided that any order of seizure, freezing, attachment. Or any prohibitory order mentioned above by the Chairman, NAB, shall remain in force for a period not exceeding 30 days unless confirmed by the Accountability Court, where the Reference under this Ordinance shall be sent by NAB: Provided further that notwithstanding that the order of NAB or the Court shall be effective from the time of passing thereof or proclamation thereof in a newspaper, widely circulated and dispatched at the last known address of the accused. Either by registered post A.D. Or courier service or any other mode of electronic media as the Court may deem proper having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.
Section 13 of the Ordinance reads as follows:- Claim' or objection against freezing.--- (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of any Jaw for the time being in force, the Accountability Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon all claims or objections against the freezing of any property under Section 12 above. Such claims or objections shall be made before the Accountability Court within 14 days from the date of the order freezing such property.
(b) The Court may for sufficient cause extend the time for filing such claims or objections for a period not exceeding additional 14 days.
(c) No appeal shall lie against an order made under Section 12 of this Ordinance:
12. M/s. Abid Zuberi and Gohar Iqbal, learned counsel for the petitioners, during their arguments, which need not be recorded nor discussed in view of the NAB statement, have not controverted NAB's statement. Learned counsel for the petitioners quiet frankly admitted that the impugned order dated 3.8.2000 has expired and thereafter the Accountability Court has not confirmed the Order under the provisions of Section 12(c)(iv) of the Ordinance.
13. Present' petition undoubtedly revolves round the order passed by the Chairman, NAB on 3.8.2000, which is impugned in this petition. Such order obviously ceased to have effect after 2.9.2000 and has not yet been confirmed under the said provisions of the NAB Ordinance. 4
14. Questions of ' Benami' or ownership of the property cannot, be decided in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. There is Civil Law for this purpose and suits have already been filed.
15. In our considered opinion in view of the foregoing reasons, the relief sought in the petition cannot be granted. It is, therefore, dismissed in &nine.
16. Above petition was dismissed by a short order dated 22.9.2000. Above are the reasons for the same.