1. The brief facts out of which the present petition arises are that the petitioner is owner of land measuring 335-Kanals 19-Marlas, which is situated at Mauza Jajja Kalan, Tehsil Pattoki, District Kasur, which was utilized by the respondent for constructions of a BUND to protect the land of the then Chief Minister of Punjab and his relatives without acquiring the same and without paying any compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved filed Constitutional Petition No, 4243-1996, against the Province of Punjab, Lahore. The Deputy Commissioner, Kasur and A.C.
2. Pattoki, District Kasur, which was accepted by this Court vide order dated 8.5.1997. The Province of Punjab being aggrieved filed C.P. No, 854-L/97 before the Honourable Supreme Court, which was refused by the Apex Court vide order dated 5.8.1998. The respondent failed to comply with the order of the Apex Court as well as of this Court. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this contempt petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is penalized by the inaction of the respondents. He further submits that respondents have no lawful authority to interpret the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court otherwise in derogation of the contents of the judgment of this Court as well as of the Honourable Supreme Court. He further submits that the former D.0 (R) Kasur has sent a report/proposal vide Letter No, DRA-2003/1938 dated 25.9.2003 to the Board of Revenue Punjab through the Executive District Officer (Rev.) Kasur for approval of the land measuring 200-Kanals out of 335-Kanals 12-Marlas owned by the Provincial Government under the possession of the Irrigation Department so as to comply with the direction of this Court.
3. Accordingly the E.D.O(R) Kasur requested the Secretary Colonies Board of Revenue Punjab, for approval of the same vide Letter No, HC(R)-2003/2095 dated 3.11.2003. He further submits that an advice of the Law Department in the matter has been received from the Secretary Colonies, Board of Revenue Punjab, vide letter dated 24.4.2004 with the advice to proceed further in the light of the advice of Law Department so as to comply with the order of this Court. The Law Department has sent an advice to the Secretary Colonies, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore vide letter dated 9.4.2004 wherein the Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore was intimated to take into consideration the following points while making the allotment of the alternate land:--
(i) It has to be agricultural land measuring 25-Acres.
(ii) The nature and value of the land should as far as be comparable with the land of the petitioner whereupon spur was constructed by the Irrigation Department without undertaking the 1 proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894."
4. He further submits that the Law Department has given the aforesaid advice in derogation of the Judgment of this Court as well as of the Honourable Supreme Court. He further submits that respondents would not like to implement the judgment of this Court as well as of the Honourable.
5. Supreme Court and have adopted a device of frustrate the judgment of this Court as well as of the Honourable Supreme Court. He further urges that this Court has ample jurisdiction to look into the subsequent events at the time of deciding the cases, therefore, he prays that opinion of the law Department dated 9.4.2004 may be set aside by converting this petition into the Constitutional petition. He further urges that mere correspondence between the respondents themselves show that respondents do not want to implement the judgment of this Court as well as of the Honourable Supreme Court on the one pretext or the other. Mr. Muhammad Sharif D.O.(R), Kasur appeared and has given a statement, which is recorded on a separate sheet "Mark-A" which is reproduced as under: "Former D.O. (R) Kasur has sent a report/proposal vide Letter No, DRA-2003/1938 dated 25.9.2003 to the Board of Revenue Punjab through the Executive District Officer (Rev.) Kasur for approval of the land measuring 200-Kanals out of 335-Kanals 12-Marlas owned by the Provincial Government under the possession of the Irrigation Department so as to comply with the direction of this Honourable Court. Accordingly the E.D.O (R) Kasur requested the Secretary Colonies Board of Revenue Punjab, for approval of the same vide Letter No, HC(R)-2003/2095 dated 3.11.2003. Under the direction of this Honourable Court, on 8.5.2004 Mr. Muhammad Shehzad Shaukat, Advocate visited the office of the under-signed and told that the proposal sent by the former D.O. (R)/E.D.O.R.
6. Kasur to the Secretary Colonies Board of Revenue Punjab, was acceptable to him. Further an advice of the Law Department in the matter has been received from the Secretary Colonies Board of Revenue Punjab vide Letter No, 536-2004/284-C-IV dated 24.4.2004 with the advice to proceed further in the light of the advice by the Law Department so as to comply with the order of the Honourable Lahore High Court. The D.D.O. (R) Pattoki, has since been requested to proceed further in the matter accordingly and send a report to the office of the under-signed immediately for further necessary action in the matter vide Letter No, DRA :2004/1631 dated 28.4.2004."
7. He has highlighted the steps taken by the respondents to implement the judgment of this Court as well as of the Honourable Supreme Court.
3. The Principal Law Officer of the Province submits that the judgment of this Court as well as of the Honourable Supreme Court are binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Articles 189, 190 and 201 of the Constitution. The respondents have no lawful authority to interpret the judgment of this Court as well as of the Honourable Supreme Court in violation of the contents of the judgment of this Court as well as of the Honourable Supreme Court, therefore, opinion of the Law Department is not in consonance with the mandatory provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan.
4. I have given my anious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused and record.
5. It is better and appropriate to produced the basic facts, operative parts of the judgment of this Court as well as of the Honourable Supreme Court, statement of Mr. Muhammad Sharif D.O.(R), Kasur, and advice of the Law Department, operative part of the letter dated 25.9.2003:--
(1) The land of the petitioner measuring 335-Kanals 19-Marlas was utilized by the respondents for construction of BUND without acquiring the same and without payment of any compensation to the petitioner;
(2) Petitioner filed Writ Petition No, 4243 of 1996, which was disposed of in the following terms vide order dated 8.5.1997:-- "Learned Advocate General is not in a position to dispute that the land of the petitioner was taken without payment of any compensation. The act is, therefore, clearly in violation of Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution.
2. In these circumstances, the petitioner is clearly entitled to have the land restored to him.
8. However, as the land has been utilized for works of public utility I am not minded to pass such an order less the public interest suffers. The best course appears to be to direct and Government to provide alternative land to the petitioner. The learned A.G. is also of the same view and suggests that a direction be issued to the respondent to allot 25 acres of agricultural land to the petitioner in lieu of his land. Order accordingly.
3. The allotment shall be made within a period of two months from today.
9. Disposed of in the above terms."
(2) The Province of Punjab being aggrieved filed C.P. No, 854-L/97 before the Honourable Supreme Court, which was refused by the Apex Court vide order dated 5.8.1998 in the following terms:-- "Learned counsel has submitted before us that there is no law under which alternate land can be ordered to be allotted to the respondent. No other point has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We do not find any substance in the arguments inasmuch as it is admitted that the land of the respondent has been acquired and no compensation has been given to him in lieu of the said land. The aforesaid order of the High Court is just, fair and proper. We agree with the view taken by the High Court that the act of the petitioner in acquiring the land of the respondent without giving him the compensation is in violation of Articles 23 & 24 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. No question of law of public importance has been raised by the learned counsel of the petitioner in these proceedings. This being so, there is no substance in this petition, which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused."
(3) The respondent failed to comply with the order of the Apex Court as well as of this Court. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this contempt petition.
(4) Statement of Mr. Muhammad Sharif D.O.(R), Kasur: "Former D.O.(R) Kasur has sent a report/proposal vide letter No, DRA-2003/1938 dated 25.9.2003 to the Board of Revenue Punjab through the Executive District Officer (Rev.) Kasur for approval of the land measuring 200-Kanals out 335- Kanals 12-Marlas owned by the Provincial Government under the possession of the Irrigation Department so as to comply with the direction of this Honourable Court. Accordingly the E.D.O (R) Kasur requested the Secretary Colonies Board of Revenue Punjab, for approval of the same vide Letter No, HC(R)-2003/2095 dated 3.11.2003. Under the direction of this Honourable Court, on 8.5.2004 Mr. Muhammad Shehzad Shaukat, Advocate visited the office of the under-signed and told that the proposal sent by the former D.O.(R)/E.D.O.R. Kasur to the Secretary Colonies Board of Revenue Punjab, was acceptable to him. Further, an advice of the Law Department in, the matter has been received from the Secretary Colonies Board of Revenue Punjab vide Letter No, 536-2004/284-C-IV dated 24.4.2004 with the advice to proceed further in the light of the advice by the Law Department so as to comply with the order of the Honourable Lahore High Court. The D.D.O. (R) Pattoki, has since been requested to proceed further in the matter accordingly and send a report to the office of the under-signed immediately for further necessary action in the matter vide Letter No, DRA-2004/1631 dated 28.4.2004."
10. (5)Letter from D.O.(R) Kasur to the E.D.O. (R), Kasur No, DRA-2003/1938 dated 25.9.2003:-- A number of meetings were convened but the irrigation Department did not attend meetings. In the meanwhile the Petitioner filed an other Crl. Org. No, 1488/W/2002 (contempt application) against the undersigned. On 9.8.2003 Sardar Muhammad Akram Javed, Executive Engineer, (Revenue) Kasur (In chair), Mr. Muhammad Akbar, Executive Engineer, Irrigation DCC, Kasur, Syed Mehmood ul Hassan, Executive Engineer, Irrigation Lahore Division, Lahore, Mr. Rashid Minhas, SDO Balloki, Sh. Muhammad Waseem, Naib Tehsildar, Pattoki, Mr. Shahzad Shaukat Counsel Abdul Rehman Shaukat, Mr. Tahir Munir Malik Advocate, Supreme Court Counsel Abdul Rehman Shaukat and Mr. Muhammad Yaqoob Bhatti representative Abdul Rehman Shaukat attended the meeting and the petitioner selected land situated in Rakh Bhoniki and Behar Wal Kalan. It was decided that the details of land i,e, copy of Jamabandi, Aks Shajra and present use/position be obtained from the Revenue Field Staff. In the meanwhile the Executive Engineer; Irrigation, Lahore Division, Lahore may also forward his departmental views about land proposed by Mr. Shehzad Shaukat Counsel and 30.8.2003 was fixed for meeting (copy of the minutes of meeting is enclosed). The Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Pattoki has submitted his report vide his No, CC/245 dated 2.9.2003 (copy, enclosed) about both the pieces of land proposed by Mr. Shahzad Shaukat Counsel.
11. Whereas, the Executive Engineer, Lahore Division, Lahore neither attended the meeting on 30.8.2003 and 6.9.2003 nor submitted departmental views about the land proposed.
12. Under the circumstances, it is proposed that the Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore may please be moved for seeking approval of land measuring 200 Kanals out of 335 Kanals 12 Marlas owned by the Provincial Govt. under the possession of Irrigation so as to comply with the directions of Honourable High Court.
13. (6)The E.D.O. (R) Kasur vide letter dated 3.11.2003 requested the Secretary Colonies, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore in the following terms:-- It is requested that approval of land measuring 200 Kanals out of 335 Kanals 12 Marlas owned by the Provincial Government under the possession of Irrigation Department may be accorded for alternate allotment to the petitioner to comply with the directions of Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore as proposed by the District Officer, (Rev.), Kasur."
(7) Letter dated 9.4.2004 to the Secretary Colonies, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore by the Section Officer (Opinion): The Law Department has examined the matter and is of the opinion that it is for the Board of Revenue to determine the location and the nature of the land to be allotted to Abdur Rehman Shaukat in lieu of the land which was taken from him without undertaking the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, the Board of Revenue may take into consideration the following points while making the allotment of the alternative land:--
(i) It has to be agricultural land measuring 25-Acres.
(ii) The nature and value of the land should as far as be comparable with the land of the petitioner whereupon spur was constructed by the Irrigation Department without undertaking the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894."
(8) The letter dated 28.4.2004 from D.O.(R) Kasur to the D.D.O. (R), Pattoki: You are requested to proceed further in the matter in the light of the above referred letter/advice and send a report to this office immediately for further necessary action in the matter."
14. In case the aforesaid facts are put in juxta position then it is crystal clear that respondents are not willing to implement the judgment of this Court as well as of the Honourable Supreme Court and the opinion of the Law Department is also not in consonance with the parameters prescribed by this Court as well as by the Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment/order. The Law Department has given opinion without considering the contents of the judgments between the same parties qua the land in-question, which was taken by the respondents without acquiring the same and without permission of the petitioner utilized the same for construction of BUND to protect the land of the then Chief Minister of the Province and his relations. In case the respondents have to pay compensation of the land measuring 335-kanals 19-marlas of the petitioner utilized by the respondents then according to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the respondents have to pay the compensation alongwith 8% compound interest till realization of the compensation, which would be compensation at the market value of the land in-question at the time of taking possession of the land in-question by the respondents alongwith 15% compulsory charges. The respondents have not paid a single penny to the petitioner therefore, petitioner can claim the compound interest at the rate of 15% per annum minimum as the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Raja Nasir Khan v. Abdul Sattar Khan and another (PLD 1998 Lahore 20). The issue has been settled between the parties up to the apex Court, therefore, it is binding upon the parties as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Pir Bakhsh vs. The Chairman, Allotment Committee and others (PLD 1987 S.C. 145). It is also settled principle of law that no body should be penalized by the inaction of the public functionaries as the law laid down by this Court in Ahmad Latif Qureshi vs. Controller of Examination, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore (PLD 1994 Lahore 3). It is settled principle of law that every body is bound to obey the command of the Constitution in view of Article 5(2) of the Constitution as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ch. Zahoor Elahi's case (PLD 1975 S.C. 383). The public functionaries are also duty bound to act in accordance with law in view of Article 4 read with Articles 189, 190 and 201 of the Constitution. Meaning thereby to act within the framework of Law and Constitution. Laws are made not to make them merely on the Statute Book which are framed to act upon them, which is in consonance with the Holy Quran, as enshrined in Surah Baqra. The question of law has been examined by this Court in M/s Nishat Mills Limited vs. Government of Pakistan and others (1989 CLC 1692) and laid down the following principle:-- "Before concluding, I would like to mention that the manner in which the Central Board of Revenue has flouted the law declared by the Supreme Court, leaves much to be desired. Under Article 5(2) of the Pakistan Constitution, 1973, obedience to the Constitution and the law is the inviolable obligation of every citizen and every other person resident in Pakistan. I am not aware that the departments of the State are exempt from such obligation. Since under Article 189 of the Constitution, the law declared by the Supreme Court of Pakistan is binding on all Courts in Pakistan and under Article 190 of the Constitution, all executive and judicial authorities throughout Pakistan are bound to act in aid of the Supreme Court, one would assume that all organs of the State are duty bound to act in aid of the law declared by the Supreme Court and not flout it. One would expect that the Central Board of Revenue, with its full fledged legal cells, is aware of all laws declared by the superior Courts of Pakistan relating to the subjects within their jurisdiction and does not ignore these declarations when framing or amending the law, rules, and notifications on the subject. It appears that the Central Board of Revenue was aware of the rulings of the Supreme Court, Peshawar High Court and the Lahore High Court. This is apparent from the Federal Government's Notification S.R.O. 489(i)/87, dated 13th June, 1987 which exempted cotton yarn from export duties if letters of credit had been opened before 12th June, 1987. However, contumacious disregard of the law declared, the said notification was withdrawn within less than three weeks, vide Notification S.R.O. 546(1)/87, dated 1st July, 1987, leaving the petitioners with the unpleasant duty of having to knock at the doors of this Court. When on 27th January, 1988, the learned counsel for the respondents was directed to discuss all these cases with the Customs Authorities and to bring to their notice the law declared on the subject, so that they could process these cases by the next date of hearing, in accordance with the law declared, the learned counsel was not able to receive any co-operation from the Customs Authorities and I had to fix these cases for arguments.
15. My oral warning that I would impose compensatory costs on the respondents, if I found later that they were deliberately not applying the law declared, fell on the defeat ears. Contumacious disrespect by the respondents of the law declared by the highest Court of the land deserves to be taken note of seriously. The Customs Authorities, therefore, deserve to be penalized with heavy costs to compensate for the demurrage suffered by the petitioners by the action of the respondents and the heavy financial losses suffered by them.in locking up their capital in order to furnish bank guarantees to get their shipments released for export. Unlike the respondents, who are none too lenient with their transgressors, I would, without being hard, impose nominal compensatory costs on the respondents at the rate of rupees one thousand (Rs, 1,000) for each shipment in respect of which the petitioners were compelled to furnish bank guarantees to secure release of their goods, pursuant to interim orders issued by this Court; such compensatory costs to be payable by the respondents to the petitioners in all the six cases on all the consignments in respect of which bank guarantees were filed by them."
16. The aforesaid proposition of law was examined by the Honourable Supreme Court in Works Co- operative Housing Society and another vs. The Karachi Development Authority (PLD 1969 S.C. 430) and laid down the following principle:-- "In the present case, the main question, in my view is as to what was the intent of this Court when it said that the Development Authority could not depart from the direction contained in the notification of the 9th of June 1964 "so long as it stands intact". Did it contemplate that the withdrawal of the notification by the Provincial Government at a subsequent stage would defeat the right of the appellant-Society? Was this. Court thereby only declaring a right contingently? I think not.
17. It is now well settled that a Notification cannot be made to operate retrospectively and I think that there can be no manner of doubt that a judgment of a Court declaring a right cannot be nullified by executive action. I cannot, therefore, persuade myself to impute to this Court any intention of authorising an illegality. This Court does not also as a rule deal with hypothetical cases. Where no existing right is established no question of granting any relief by this Court can arise particularly, in proceedings initiated under Article 98 of the Constitution. It is difficult, therefore, to appreciate as to how this Court could be said to have declared in the appeal, from which the present application arises, only a contingent right defeatable at the will of the Provincial Government.
18. In my view the words "so long as it stands" occurring in the last paragraph of the judgment in the appeal mean no more than this that since the relevant provisions of the notifications dated 9.6.64 had not been altered till then the commitment subsisted and the appellant-Society was entitled to the allotment. It could never have been the intention of this Court to give to the Provincial Government a right to amend the notification in such a way as to nullify its own judgment I am therefore, of tat the view the construction sought to be placed by the Development Authority on this portion of the judgment of this Court is wholly un-justified and unwarranted. With these observations I would send back the case to the High Court to deal with it under Order LXV, Rule 15 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The costs of these proceedings in this Court will abide the result of the proceedings in the High Court."
19. The Honourable Supreme Court again considered the question of law in Capt. (Retd.) Abdul Qayyum Executive Engineer vs. Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar and 4 others (PLD 1992 S.C. 184) and laid down the following principle: "The Supreme Court held in Works Co-operative Housing Society and another Vs. The Karachi Development Authority PLD 1969 S.C. 430 that a judgment of the Supreme Court a right declared thereunder, cannot be overridden or nullified by an executive order, a rule or a dispensation short of legislative will."
20. The aforesaid correspondence between the respondents clearly reveals that the respondents have committed contempt of this Court much less than the Law Department, which is not, as mentioned above, in consonance with the judgment of this Court as well as of the superior Courts. In fact it is clearly in derogation of the Judgement of this Court as well as of the Honourable Supreme Court, which tantamounts to interference in the Judgment of the Courts and falls within the scope of contempt of Court. The judgment of Courts could not be modified/erased out by subsequent letters as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology vs. Imtiaz Ali (2001 SCMR 832). Nonobservance of the orders of the superior Courts would create a chaos, which brings a situation to minimize the State concept of sovereign Islamic State minus a strong and independent judiciary is unimaginable. If the judiciary of the country is stripped off, its power, the country would ceased to exist as free nation as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in State vs. Tariq Aziz and 6 others (2000 SCMR 751). Mr. Vijay Kumar Dewan in his Book prosecuting system in (Practice and Procedure). The relevant observation is as follows: "The works of Judiciary however, worked systematically in view of considerable importance attached by Akbar and his successors and Akbar had definite zeal to administer justice impartially and he had once remarked. If I were guilty of an unjust act I would rise in judgment against myself.
21. What shall I say then of my sons, my kindred and others.
22. This principle is specifically contained in our Constitution by virtue of preamble, Articles 2-A, 4, 5(2), 23, 24, 25, 37 and 38. In the present case land of the petitioner was taken without acquiring under the Land Acquisition Act, without consent and without payment of single penny simply to save/protect the land of the then Chief Minister and his relations that is why this Court and the Apex Court directed the respondents to provide alternative land to the petitioner, which is not obeyed by the respondents till today. In case, we want to live as independent nation, then every body has to work within the command of the Constitution and law and should not hesitate to discharge his duties in accordance with law and Constitution otherwise the rule of Jungal will prevail which is not in the interest of country and nation. People of Pakistan must provide justice by all the organ of the State. Every body has to work honestly, fairly and justly as held in M/s. Airport Support Service vs. The Airport Manager Karachi (1998 SCMR 2268) for the purpose of building national character as is highlighted by Lord Wavel about founder of Pakistan, which is reproduced hereunder:-- "He (founder of Pakistan) is not only honest but he is also intellectually honest"
23. The Honourable Supreme Court has laid following principle in Shaukat Ali and others vs. Government of Pakistan Ministry of Railways and others (PLD 1997 S.C. 342). The relevant observation is as reproduced hereunder: "We may observe that since Pakistan is founded on the basis of religion of Islam, efforts should be made to bring about an egalitarian society based on Islamic Concept of fair play and social justice. The State functionaries like Railways are expected to act fairly and justly, in a manner, which should not give to any one any cause of complaint on account of discriminatory treatment of otherwise. While discharging official functions, efforts should be made to ensure that no one is denied to earn his livelihood because of the unfair or discriminatory act on the part of any State functionary. It is hoped that the petitioners who had been earning livelihood for considerable long period on the basis of licences granted by the Railways, will be treated fairly,"
24. The judgment of this Court as well as of the Honourable Supreme Court did not mention a single word qua the nature and value of the land should as far as be comparable with the land of the petitioner whereupon the spur was constructed by the Irrigation Department without undertaking the , proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is admitted fact and not denied even today that ,the land of the petitioner was utilized by the respondents without acquiring the same under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and did not pay a single penny to the petitioner till date, which is not in accordance with Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution as the law laid down by the honourable Supreme Court in Jibendra Kishore Achharyya Chowdhury and 58 others vs. The Province of East Pakistan and Secretary Finance and Revenue (Revenue)
25. Department, Government of East Pakistan. (PLD 1957 S.C. 9) coupled with the fact that the land of the petitioner was utilized by the respondents in the year 1996. Constitutional petition filed by the petitioner was accepted by this Court on 8.5.1997 whereas the C.P.S.L.A. filed by the Province of Punjab was refused by the Honourable Supreme Court vide order dated 5.8.1998 and the respondents failed to. pay a single penny to the petitioner and did not implement the judgment of this Court as well as of the Honourable Supreme Court on the one pretext or the other without any justification. The correspondence between the respondents themselves would clearly show that respondents have committed contempt of this Court as well as of the Honourable Supreme Court not less than even by the Law Department, which of-course, wear the laws of the country on the sleeves of its robe as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Muhammad Sarwar vs. The State (PLD 1969 S.C. 278). The petitioner did not receive a single penny of compensation qua the land secured by the respondents without his permission since 1996 till date. Keeping in view the stand taken by the Advocate General Punjab, as mentioned above, I have taken a lenient view not to proceed against the respondents under contempt proceedings as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan vs. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2003 S.C. 82). It is also settled principle of law that this Court has discretion to proceed against the respondents or not. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I am not inclined to proceed against the respondents as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Mst.
26. Safia Bibi vs. Mst. Aisha Bibi (PLD 1982 P.S.C. Cases 304). The question of law was also considered by the Calcutta High Court in Tarit Kanti Biswas' case reported in (AIR 1981 Cal. 988). The relevant observation is as follows: "The Court has in respect of a contempt of Court should be exercised with great care and it should only be exercised when the case is beyond all reasonable doubt, and this should especially be the case when the proceedings are at the instance of the Court itself."
7. In view of what has been discussed above, the opinion rendered by the Law Department dated 9.4.2004 is without lawful authority and this Court has ample jurisdiction to look into the subsequent events at the time of deciding the cases as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Mst. Amina Begum and others vs. Mehar Ghulam Dastgir (PLD 1978 S.C. 220) and this Court has ample jurisdiction to convert the proceedings of one nature into another nature.
27. However, respondents are directed to hand over possession of land measuring 200-Kanals in village Bhoniki Tehsil Pattoki, District Kasur in lieu of the land of the petitioner measuring 335-Kanals 19 Marlas, as mentioned in letter dated 25.9.2003 of the District Officer (Revenue), Kasur through the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Kasur to the Secretary Colonies, Board of Revenue, Punjab Lahore and also necessary proprietary rights qua the land be issued and mutation in the revenue record be also entered and sanctioned in favour of the petitioner and all the formalities shall be completed within one month after receiving the Judgment. Respondents are further directed to send report to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within the stipulated period.
28. With these observation, this petition is disposed of. Copy Dasti on payment of usual charges. 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.