Land dispute case: report submitted against former chief secretary in Supreme Court

Advocate General Punjab (AGP) has submitted an inquiry report against former chief secretary Punjab Kamran Rashool and former district co-ordination officer Lahore Khalid Sultan in the Supreme Court, holding that owners of plot in question Sajida Parveen suffered lot of agony at the hands of government official as they were dragged into protracted and unjustified litigation concerning veracity of title of plot.
On previous hearing a two-member bench of the Supreme Court had directed Advocate General Punjab (AGP) to hold an inquiry against former chief secretary Punjab Kamran Rasool (presently working as chief secretary Azad Kashmir) and former district co-ordination officer Lahore Khalid Sultan as why they ordered an illegal inquiry against owners of precious land.
The report said National accountability bureau had also held inquiry against Khalid Sultan but the same should be produced in the court being a confidential document. Process of verification of title was started on a letter written by the then Town Officer Data Gunj Bakhsh Town in April 2004 but this important letter was not signed by the then Town officer rather it carried signatures of building inspector.
The report said process of verification was also initiated on revenue side as well and strangely within five days mutation in name Mst Latif Begum was allowed to be reviewed by DOR and consequently cancelled by AC solely on the ground that copy of PTD was untraceable.
AGP said it was intriguing state of affairs as to why DOR could not wait for a repot from settlement authorities as regards verification of plot's title before reviewing mutation. Only reason, according to me, is that some one was in hurry to undo title claimed by respondents so as to prevent them from utilising plot in question.
The respondents had also submitted a building plan to TMA DGBT for construction of multi story plaza on their plot and the plan was ultimately recommended by High Level Design Committee (HLDC) headed by Khaild Sultan, the then DCO. However, this recommendation was made subject to decision of government whether the plot fell within commercial area.
AGP said even till date government has not able to resolve the anomaly despite the fact that there are at least two buildings in close proximity to respondents' plot which have been allowed to be constructed as commercial plaza.
AGP said Khalid Sultan wrote a letter to then CS requesting him to hand over case to member (colonies) Board of Revenue for verification of record. AGP said under law member colonies had no authority to conduct such inquiry as this authority exclusively vested with chief settlement commissioner.
But no one bothered to check record of settlement authorities. In fact matter was referred to revenue staff to nullify stay orders given by civil court in favour of owners and employ a short-cut method for seizing and sealing property.
The then chief secretary directed action for entrustment of case to Member colonies without realising that he had no authority in the matter.
The report said that High Rise Building Commission constituted by SC also examined the premises of respondent and observed," gross injustice had been done to builder who has been stopped without any fault on his part to raise construction" and held that building plan be forwarded by TMA to HLDC for its approval within 30 days but said plan was not produced before HLDC.
The report said the respondents had alleged that through Khalid Rehman, architect a sum of Rs 5 million was paid to Khalid Sultan for approval of building plan in 2003. But these are vague allegation.
As per details, Begum Latif was owner of 6 Kanal one marla evacuee land at Jail road through permanent transfers made in her favour in 1963. She sold the land in 1994 to Sajida Parveen and four others.
In May 2003, the new owners applied to Town municipal administration Data Gunj Bakhsh Town, for permission to construct multi-storey commercial building called Target Plaza. A high level committee had approved their building plan. Later district government raised a controversy about the title of Sajida etc and an inquiry was started by settlement commissioner. The matter landed in LHC where a single bench dismissed claim of Sajida and other but a division bench cleared their title pertaining to land in dispute.
Having aggrieved of LHC order, Punjab government through chief settlement commissioner moved in the SC, which dismissed government's petition in April. Kamran Rassol had stated before SC that he ordered inquiry to Board of Revenue on the basis of detailed report from DCO who was principal officer of the district. Furthermore, extremely valuable property belonging to government was being claimed on doubtful documents.
Rasool further said he exercised his supervisory function under Rule 8 read with Rule 42(5) of the Rule of Business 1974. SC observed that rule 42(5) quoted by chief secretary had been deleted much before he purported to act. Likewise, SC also expressed dissatisfaction on the statement submitted by Khalid Sultan, who was DCO at that time.