IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
 
 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR 
 
 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED 
 
 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE MAQBOOL BAQAR 
 
CIVIL PETITIONS NOS.51 AND 57 OF 2015 
(Against the judgment dated 12.1.2015 of the High Court of 
Baluchistan, Quetta passed in CP Nos.501 and 504 of 2014) 
 
Maqbool Ahmed Lehri 
 
 
 
(In CP 51/15) 
 
Ali Muhammad Baloch  
 
 
(In CP 57/15) 
… 
Petitioners  
 
 
 
 
Versus 
NAB & another 
 
 
 
 
… 
Respondents 
 
For the petitioners: 
 
Mr.Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, Sr.ASC 
(In CP 51/15) 
 
 
Mr.Afzal Ahmed Siddiqui, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr.Baz Muhammad Khan, Advocate 
 
 
 
 
 
a/w petitioner 
 
(In CP 57/15) 
 
 
Mr. Kamran Murtaza, ASC 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR. 
a/w petitioner 
 
For respondent (NAB): 
 
Mr.Nasir Mahmood Mughal, 
Special Prosecutor 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
 
20.4.2015 
 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
MAQBOOL BAQAR, J.- The petitioners, through the 
above petitions, have assailed the judgment dated 12.1.2015 of a 
learned Division Bench of the High Court of Baluchistan, whereby 
two separate petitions bearing CP Nos.501 and 504 of 2014, filed 
by the petitioners, have been dismissed, and the order granting ad-
interim bail to them has been re-called.  
2. 
 
The facts of the case, in brief, are that a certain piece 
of land was acquired by the Government of Baluchistan under the 
Baluchistan Land Acquisition Ordinance 1979, for construction of 
a bridge over a railway track to connect Zarghoon Road and Sariab 
Road in Quetta. The transfer of the land in favour of the 
Government of Baluchistan was accordingly recorded in the 
revenue record. The overhead bridge was constructed by Quetta 
CP 51&57/15 
2 
Development Authority (“QDA”). However, a portion of the aforesaid 
acquired land, bearing Khasra No. 2250/517 situated in Mohal 
Sirki Kalan, Tappu Saddar, District Quetta, measuring 30,492 
sq.ft. which remained unutilized and was reserved for the future 
expansion of the bridge, (“the land”), was purportedly sold to one 
Sultan Ahmed through a purported sale deed dated 26.4.2007, 
purportedly executed by QDA in favour of Sultan Ahmed. At the 
relevant time the petitioner Maqbool Ahmed Lehri was the Nazim, 
City District Government, in which capacity he held the post of 
Chairman QDA also. Neither was any advertisement placed by 
QDA as required in terms of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 
113 of the Quetta Development Authority Ordinance, nor was the 
land offered to those from whom the same was acquired, before the 
purported sale. It was in respect of the above purported 
transaction that reference has been submitted by National 
Accountability Bureau (“NAB”) where arrest of the petitioner has 
been ordered. It is through the impugned judgment that the 
petitions filed by the present petitioners against the filing of the 
reference have been dismissed.  
3. 
 
However, before we proceed any further, it would be 
relevant to briefly record the history of the case; in fact prior to 
acquiring the land through the purported sale deed, it was in the 
year 1990 that Sultan Ahmed procured a purported allotment of 
the land from petitioner Maqbool Ahmed Lehri, while the later was 
Mayor, Municipal Corporation Quetta (“MCQ”), and as such the 
purported lease deed was executed by the said petitioner in favour 
of Sultan Ahmed for a period of 30 years on 06.5.1990. For such 
allotment Sultan Ahmed initially applied to the Minister for 
QDA/WASA Baluchistan, who sought comments from MCQ. The 
Municipal Engineer MCQ, though in his note stated that the 
CP 51&57/15 
3 
ownership of the land is of QDA, yet recommended leasing out the 
land in favour of Sultan Ahmed, and sought permission to 
allot/lease out the land and to execute such agreement in favour of 
Sultan Ahmed. The petitioner Maqbool Lehri who, as noted above, 
was Mayor MCQ, endorsed the above for the approval of the 
Minister for QDA/WASA. Thereafter, Sultan Ahmed applied to the 
Chief Minister for allotment of the land for thirty years enabling 
him to establish and run a nursery, the Chief Minister, obliged by 
endorsing “Please allot for thirty years”. Whereafter, the allotment 
and lease as noted above were granted. The lease, as disclosed by 
MCQ in its written statement in suit No.979/1993, was however 
terminated on 19.4.1993. On the said very date, i.e. 19.4.1993, 
MCQ also initiated criminal proceedings under section 133 Cr.P.C. 
for resumption of possession of the land. Sultan Ahmed thus, on 
the one hand, on 20.4.1993, filed the above noted suit in the Court 
of Civil Judge-I, Quetta for declaration and permanent injunction 
against the Administrator, MCQ, Municipal Magistrate, Illaqa 
Magistrate and the concerned SHO, in respect of the land in 
question, and on the other filed a Criminal Revision before the 
Additional Session Judge, Quetta. In his suit Sultan Ahmed alleged 
that the defendants are attempting to dispossess him from the 
land. Upon knowledge of the suit QDA joined the proceedings as 
defendant No.5. In their written statements the defendants denied 
Sultan Ahmed’s claim over the land. MCQ in its written statement 
averred that the purported lease deed has been terminated on 
19.4.1993, and that MCQ is not the owner of the land, and was not 
authorized to execute the purported lease, and further that the 
lease “is neither properly stamped nor registered as required under 
the law”, whereas QDA in its written statement claimed that the 
lease is “patently void”. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, 
CP 51&57/15 
4 
through order dated 26.10.1995, held that admittedly QDA is the 
owner of the land and since the purported lease has been cancelled 
by the Administrator, MCQ on 19.4.1993, Sultan Ahmed has no 
locus standi and his possession of the land is unauthorized, and 
dismissed the suit. Upon an appeal filed by Sultan Ahmed on 
8.5.1996 the dismissal order was set-aside and the suit was 
remanded to the trial Court. The aforesaid criminal revision was 
dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge on 30.11.1993. Through 
judgment dated 09.1.1994, Crl.Misc. Quashment Application filed 
by Respondent-Sultan Ahmed in the High Court of Baluchistan 
was also dismissed. Criminal Petition filed by Sultan Ahmed 
against the said judgment before this Court was, on 23.11.1994, 
disposed of on the basis of a statement of the Additional Advocate 
General, that no proceedings under section 133 Cr.P.C. are 
pending against Respondent-Sultan Ahmed.  
4. 
 
Sultan Ahmed was, through order dated 07.11.1997, 
allowed to withdraw the aforesaid suit with permission to file a 
fresh suit, the withdrawal was however allowed subject to payment 
of cost of Rs.25,000/-. He, however, did not file a fresh suit in 
respect of the action/decision impugned through the suit 
withdrawn.  
5. 
 
Undettered by the above cancellation, Sultan Ahmed 
in his pursuit to grab the suit land, after waiting for an opportune 
time, on 01.4.1997 submitted another application to the Chief 
Minister, where he concealed the termination of his purported 
allotment/lease and all the above noted subsequent events, and 
simply claimed that  though the suit land was allotted to him for 
nursery by the former Minister Local Bodies through the former 
Mayor, MCQ in the year 1991, but some people are creating 
difficulties in his way, and requested the Chief Minister to order 
CP 51&57/15 
5 
allotment of the land, and for direction to the QDA to settle the 
price through negotiation with him. The then Chief Minister sought 
report in the matter. Unfortunately, the Chief Minister was not 
apprised of the correct legal and factual position in the matter, and 
on 28.9.1997, he passed an order as follow:- 
“This is an old case and the Authority has already given 
the approval for lease of land and settlement with the 
applicant. Now, since the applicant wants to buy the land, 
the Director General, QDA may settle the matter by 
negotiations with the applicant, keeping in view the rates of 
Commercial and other categories in mind.” 
 
However, pursuant to the above orders, the Chief Secretary, 
Baluchistan, 
through 
his 
note 
dated 
29.9.1997, 
sought 
information regarding the legal claim of the Government over the 
land. The Secretary Local Government, instead of meeting the 
query, observed that the file was sent to the government by 
mistake and referred the same to QDA “for necessary action”. 
Whereupon the Director (Estate) Commercial, QDA, neglected to 
mention the afore noted crucial aspects of the matter and simply 
stated that the land in question is in possession of Sultan Ahmed 
since 1991, and forwarded the aforesaid purported lease deed 
executed by the former Mayor, MCQ in favour of Sultan Ahmed. 
Through letter dated 21.10.1997, Director General, QDA in 
purported compliance of the Chief Minister’s order dated 
28.9.1997, 
called 
Sultan 
Ahmed 
for 
negotiations. 
In 
the 
meanwhile, the so called prevailing market rates of the residential 
and commercial lands in the vicinity of the subject land were 
obtained by QDA through Deputy  Commissioner, Quetta, who 
through his letter dated 28.11.1997, conveyed the rate of 
residential land in the vicinity as being Rs.200 per sq.ft, and that 
the rates of such commercial lands ranges between Rs.200 to 500 
per sq.ft. A summary was then prepared and submitted before the 
Chief Minister, Baluchistan saying that after negotiations with 
CP 51&57/15 
6 
Sultan Ahmed, the rates of the land have been agreed at Rs.400 
per sq.ft for commercial portion and Rs.150 per sq.ft for residential 
portion. The Chief Minister, as noted by his Private Secretary on 
the relevant file on 6.4.1998, ordered that “a case for lease rent for 
30 years at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per annum may be processed 
and re-submitted for perusal/order”. On 29.5.1998, the Chief 
Secretary, Baluchistan in his bid to save the land from being dolled 
out as above, ordered as follows:-  
“Please submit a summary to the Chief Minster pointing out 
the implications of this decision which will impact adversely 
on the QDA as the land is much too valuable to be  leased 
out like that; and besides there is no precedent to return the 
acquired land paid for by public agency like QDA. Also 
please refer to Land Acquisition Act.”  
 
6. 
 
However, through letter dated 20.8.1998, DG, QDA 
offered the price of the land @ Rs.450 per sq.ft for commercial 
portion and Rs.200 per sq.ft for residential portion, (such portions 
having been earmarked by the Incharge Town Planning, QDA), and 
required Sultan Ahmed to respond within a week’s time. It may be 
significant to note here that no where it is even mentioned, as to 
when, how, in what manner, on what basis, under what law, rules 
and regulations, and/or policy, and under what authority the land 
was bifurcated into commercial and residential categories. It is also 
not explained as to on what basis and under which criteria the 
sizes, location and demarcation of the two purported categories was 
affected. In response to the above letter/offer Sultan Ahmed, 
through letter dated 31.8.1998, stated that the agreed rate being 
Rs.400 per sq.ft for commercial portion, and Rs.150 per sq.ft for 
the residential area, the offer be amended accordingly. The matter 
of allotment was placed before the Governing Body, QDA in its 
meeting held on 01.1.1999, however, the Governing Body rejected 
the very proposal to sale and decided that:- 
CP 51&57/15 
7 
“i) 
The land occupied illegally by Mr.Sultan Ahmed s/o 
Shadi Khan may be got vacated with the help of 
concerned authorities. 
ii) 
The construction of second phase of the bridge may 
be examined and report be submitted.” 
  
7. 
 
Through letter dated 30.4.1999, DG, QDA informed 
Sultan Ahmed of the above decision and that the aforesaid letter 
dated 20.8.1998 be treated as withdrawn. 
8. 
 
However, the matter did not rest here, as Sultan 
Ahmed, suppressing the above decision of the Governing Body and 
all the other adverse developments, and despite the fact that upon 
the above decision there remained no basis/offer (of whatever 
worth the same might have been), and thus there was absolutely 
no question of making any payment towards the land, through an 
undated letter requested the Chief Minister for an order directing 
the DG QDA to allow him to deposit 50% of the price of the land. 
The Chief Minister through letter dated 30.6.2003, directed that 
“the applicant be allowed to deposit the cost of the plot as per 
agreed rate”. It may be noted that the rates were purportedly 
agreed five years before the said order and that in the meanwhile 
the value of the land appreciated substantially.  
9. 
 
Through 
letter 
dated 
14.11.2002, 
petitioner 
Ali 
Muhammad Baloch, advised Sultan Ahmad to deposit 5% of the 
tentative price of the land; as previously determined so that the 
matter may be placed before the governing body of QDA for their 
decision.  
10. 
 
However, still Sultan Ahmed did not make any 
payment and wrote yet another undated letter to the Chief 
Minister, stating that “unfortunately the applicant could not deposit 
the said cost of land”. The Chief Minister once again obliged the 
applicant, and on 23.8.2004, directed DG QDA, to grant 
CP 51&57/15 
8 
permission to the applicant to deposit the price of the plot as 
“already agreed”. 
11. 
 
A Summary dated 27.8.2004, was then submitted 
before the Chief Minister, which, inter alia, disclosed that Sultan 
Ahmed, has through an application approached NAB, and 
expressed his willingness to deposit the entire amount of the 
present market value of the land, and that in the event he is 
unable to make such payment, he shall surrender the land to 
QDA, whereupon the NAB sought comments from QDA and that 
QDA conveyed its no objection, subject to approval by its governing 
body, but Sultan Ahmed surrendered the land to QDA. The 
summary placed before the Chief Minister, two options, being (i) 
restoration of the offer made to Respondent-Sultan Ahmed earlier, 
or (ii) to sale the land at the prevailing market rate subject to the 
approval of the Governing Body QDA. The Chief Minister endorsed 
the following note on the summary:- 
“para 5 to be definitely to be xxxxxxx [deleted]  as proposed 
for xxxx [deleted]  for restoration” 
  
 
12. 
 
Through 
letter 
dated 
18.09.2004, 
petitioner 
Ali 
Muhammad Baloch in pursuance of the directives of the Chief 
Minister, revived the offer letter dated 20.08.1998 and directed 
Sultan Ahmad to deposit the cost of the land accordingly.   
13. 
 
It was after a lapse of 17 months of the above, and 
only after the petitioner Maqbool Ahmed Lehri became Nazim, 
MCQ, as well as Chairman QDA, that the matter was purportedly 
placed before the Governing Body of the QDA, in its meeting held 
on 28.1.2006, which meeting was convened only for the approval of 
a revised budget, that the issue of the subject land was 
purportedly placed before the Board by way of an “ex-agenda item” 
under the heading “Confirmation of orders of Chief Minister 
CP 51&57/15 
9 
Baluchistan - land of Mr.Sultan Ahmed” and as per the purported 
minutes of the meeting, the board purportedly decided as follows:- 
“The house confirmed the directives of Hon’ble Chief 
Minister 
Baluchistan 
issued 
vide 
U.O.No.PS-CM/1-
1/2003/2078 dated 13.6.2003 & U.O. No.PS-CM/1-
1/2004 dated 01.9.2004 and also confirmed the letter 
No.2-395/93(QDA)E(C)/ 760-62 dated 18.9.2004 issued by 
QDA. It was further decided that the allottee may deposit 
the balance cost of land as per direction of the CM.” 
 
14. 
 
Regarding the above meeting/proceedings, it is pointed 
out on behalf of the respondents that it was the very first meeting 
under the chairmanship of petitioner Maqbool Ahmed Lehri. It is 
alleged that the members of the Governing Body who participated 
in the meeting stated before the NAB authorities that neither was 
any issue pertaining to the land/“ex-agenda item”, discussed in the 
said meeting, nor was any such proposal/item approved. It is 
further contended that under the relevant rules, the minutes of the 
meeting of the Governing Body were/are supposed to be signed 
either by the Director Administration or by DG QDA, but the 
minutes in question have purportedly been singed by the 
Chairman, Maqbool Ahmed Lehri, the petitioner. It is further 
pointed out, and it so appears from the relevant extract of the 
minutes of the meeting, the earlier decision of the Governing Body 
rejecting the proposal of sale of land to Sultan Ahmed, and for 
getting it vacated and submitting a report for the expansion of the 
bridge was concealed from the Board.  
15. 
 
The purported sale deed was then purportedly 
executed by QDA on 26.4.2007, however, since the same did not 
specify the land purportedly sold, a deed of rectification was 
sought to be executed. However, DG QDA through letter dated 
13.2.2010 informed the concerned Sub-Registrar that the said 
deed of rectification has not been issued with his approval and it 
therefore not be entertained. He further cautioned the Sub-
CP 51&57/15 
10
Registrar that “The sale has some doubts and objection which are 
being examined”. However, it seems that such deed of rectification 
had been registered by the time the above letter was sent. 
16. 
 
The sale deed was executed without full payment of 
the purportedly agreed price of land being made and a substantial 
amount of the sale price remained unpaid at the time of the 
execution of the sale deed, such balance amount was paid only 
after the execution of the deed. 
17. 
 
As noted above, admittedly the land was owned 
neither by MCQ nor by QDA, and was/is owned by the 
Government of Baluchistan and therefore none of the above bodies 
was either competent or authorized to sale the land, even 
otherwise in terms of section 113 of the Quetta Development 
Authority Ordinance, 1978, which reads as follows:-   
“113. Power to dispose of land- 
(1) The Authority may retain, or may lease, well, exchange, 
rent or otherwise dispose of any land vested in or 
acquired by it under this Ordinance. 
(2) Whenever the Authority decides to lease or sell any 
land acquired by it under this Ordinance from any 
person, it shall- 
(a) 
give 
notice 
through 
advertisement 
in 
newspapers published in the Quetta City. 
(b) 
offer to the person or persons, from whom 
the land has been acquired, or their heirs, 
executors or administrators, a prior right to 
lease or purchase such land, at rate to be 
fixed by the Authority, if in its discretion it 
determines that such lease or sale is in the 
public interest.”   
 
Firstly, it is an essential pre-requisite to determine as to whether or 
not the sale of any land vested in or acquired by QDA would be in 
the public interest, secondly, it is mandatory to publish notice of 
the proposed sale by QDA in the newspapers published in the city 
of Quetta, and thirdly, and in the foremost, it is essentially 
required that in case the land is an acquired land, it be first offered 
to the person(s) from whom the same has been acquired. However, 
as evident from the foregoing, none of the above essential statutory 
requirements were met in respect of the transactions in question. 
CP 51&57/15 
11
18. 
 
It is also crucial to note that since admittedly the land 
was/is owned by the Government of Baluchistan, it was to be dealt 
with under and in terms of Baluchistan Land Lease Policy, 2000 
(“the policy”), formulated in pursuance of sub-section (2) of Section 
10 of the Colonization of Government Land Act, 1912, and 
published in the Baluchistan Gazette on 01.12.2000. Clause 4(2) 
of which policy mandates that “all state land falling within five 
miles of the limits of Municipal Committee/Municipal Corporation 
and within three miles of Town Committee will be reserved for 
further utilization”. The land being situated within the city of 
Quetta, thus fell under the above restriction/prohibition and was 
therefore not saleable at all. The land, as noted earlier, was part of 
the land acquired for the construction of a bridge and after 
construction of the first phase was reserved for the construction of 
second phase thereof, the above fact, as noted earlier, was also 
acknowledged by the Governing Body of the QDA in its meeting 
held on 01.4.1999 and thus, in view of the clause 3 (2) of the 
policy, which prescribes that land can only be leased provided it 
was not required for “public building, other public sector projects”, 
could not have been leased out at all. 
19. 
 
Furthermore, even the lease permissible under the 
policy, can, in terms of sub-clause (1) of clause 5 of the Policy, be 
granted for a period of thirty years only. Rates of the yearly rent 
money, as stipulated by sub-clause (2) of clause 5 of the Policy, is 
to be determined by a Committee, keeping in view the market 
value/performance. The policy in terms of sub-clause (3) of clause 
5 further requires that “the highest standard of transparency will 
be ensured” and “after giving due publicity” and further that the 
lease money is to be charged “as per market value or through the 
process of auction”. In terms of clause 10 of the policy there is a 
CP 51&57/15 
12
clear prohibition against assignment/sub-letting or transfer of the 
lease land or any part thereof by the lessee. The authority for grant 
of lease as designated through clause 16 of the policy, is “Collector 
as defined under the Land Revenue Act, 1967”. However, as evident 
from the foregoing narration of events, every single provision of the 
policy has been trampled in the present case. 
20. 
 
Another crucial aspect of the matter is that the land, 
as noted earlier, was compulsorily acquired by the Government of 
Baluchistan for a public purpose, “public purpose” having been 
exempted from the bar against compulsory acquisition as 
prescribed by Article 24 of the Constitution, which provision 
guarantees protection of proprietary rights in accordance with law, 
and therefore, not utilizing the land for the public purpose and 
selling the same to private person(s) is violative of the object, spirit, 
principle and the purpose of the provisions of Article 24 of the 
Constitution, in view whereof, even in case the land would not 
have been required for any public purpose, and even if it could 
have been lawfully sold, the person(s) from whom the same was 
acquired ought to have been provided an opportunity to participate 
in the process so as to enable them to make an offer for its 
purchase in accordance with law. The sale in question is, 
therefore, violative of the mandate of the constitution also. 
21. 
 
From the foregoing narration of the facts and events, it 
can been seen that not only the policy was grossly violated and 
blatantly contravened, but prima facie the subject transactions 
were affected through fraudulent machinations. The suppression of 
the termination and cancellation of the purported lease and also of 
the rejection of the very proposal for sale by the Governing Body 
QDA, is manifest from the above narration. It has not been 
explained as to how, why, under what law, rule and regulations or 
CP 51&57/15 
13
policy, and under what authority, the land reserved for a public 
sector project, was designated/bifurcated into/as “Residential” and 
“Commercial” categories, and as to under what criteria and on what 
basis the area and locations/dimensions of such purported 
categories were determined/affected. Very serious and valid 
objections raised by the Chief Office of the Province in the matter 
were also ignored. Although as narrated in the summary referred 
to hereinbefore, Sultan Ahmad himself offered to, either pay the 
market value, or to surrender the land. The land was still sold at a 
grossly inadequate price.    
22. 
 
Though 
illegally, 
however, 
the 
Chief 
Minister 
Baluchistan, as noted earlier also, clearly directed that “the case 
for lease land for 30 years at the rate of Rs.15000 per annum may 
be processed” the purported sale is therefore also contrary to the 
order of the Chief Minister. 
23. 
 
As per the NAB, the members of the Governing Body, 
who participated in the meeting dated 01.4.1999, disclosed before 
the NAB that neither they had any notice of the issue pertaining to 
the land being taken up in the aforesaid meeting, nor the 
matter/issue was in fact taken up or decided, as wrongly 
mentioned in the purported minutes of the meeting. It is further 
alleged that the DG QDA who also is a member of the Governing 
Body QDA, through his letter dated 29.9.2006, confirmed that the 
issue of the land was not discussed in the meeting. The deep 
involvement and persistent interest of the petitioner Maqbool 
Ahmed Lehri in the matter from the very beginning can been seen, 
inter alia,  from the facts that it was he who, as Mayor MCQ, 
despite the fact that land did not belong to MCQ, forwarded the 
recommendation of the Municipal Engineer for leasing the land in 
favour of Sultan Ahmed and for executing the agreement 
CP 51&57/15 
14
accordingly, and that, as evident from the minister’s approval note 
itself, the approval was granted on Lehri’s recommendation. And 
thereafter the purported allotment letter and the purported lease 
deed was also executed by Maqbool Lehri. Furthermore the process 
pertaining to the subsequent transaction, i.e. the execution of the 
sale deed, remained pending for about seventeen (17) months after 
Sultan Ahmed was finally allowed/advised to deposit the sale 
price, and was purportedly placed before the Governing Body, 
QDA, immediately upon petitioner Maqbool Ahmed Lehri’s 
assuming the office of the Chairman QDA, by way of “ex-agenda 
item”, where purported approval of the sale was purportedly 
obtained, despite the earlier adverse decision of the Governing 
Body, QDA not to sale the land. The purported approval and the 
consequential purported sale were in conflict with the earlier 
decision of the QDA and MCQ, and their stance in the relevant 
proceedings before the various courts. The land was doled out at 
the rate purportedly assessed six years earlier, and to further 
unduly favour the beneficiary the larger portion of the land was 
designated as residential, to which category lower rate was applied. 
This was done despite the fact that Sultan Ahmad had earlier 
offered before the NAB, either to buy the land at the market rate, 
otherwise to surrender the land. The above misuse of the 
authority, it appears, was not just to benefit Sultan Ahmed, the 
purported allottee, but was so exercised for the benefit of a real 
brother and two paternal cousins of petitioner Maqbool Ahmed 
Lehri, in whose favour the land was subsequently transferred, 
through an attorney of Sultan Ahmed, which attorney also is a 
cousin of petitioner Maqbool Ahmed Lehri. Furthermore, as noted 
earlier, the land was purportedly sold to Sultan Ahmed on 
26.4.2007, however, the above attorney was appointed through a 
CP 51&57/15 
15
power of attorney executed on 17.4.2006, a year before the 
purported sale. The execution of the Power of Attorney as above 
clearly demonstrates strong confidence of the beneficiary that the 
land shall surely be allotted to Sultan Ahmed, otherwise there was 
no question of appointing an attorney to deal with something that 
did not exist. It also appears that the real purpose of obtaining the 
power of attorney was to secure the interest of the real 
beneficiaries, the brother and a cousin of petitioner No.1. In the 
NAB reference, it has been alleged that Sultan Ahmed, being a 
small time motor mechanic, had no funds to pay for the land and 
had in fact acted as a front man for the petitioner Maqbool Ahmed 
Lehri. Reference in this regard has been made to the statement 
recorded by respondent Sultan Ahmed before the learned High 
Court of Baluchistan in Constitution Petition No.332 of 2012. In 
this respect the judgment of the learned High Court of Balochistan 
in the said CP has also pointed out, that the various signatures 
said to be inscribed by Sultan Ahmed on the applications 
purportedly made by him to the Chief Minister, from time to time, 
do not tally with his admitted signature on the record. The 
allotment in question being wholly illegal, mala fide and void has 
already been declared and treated by this Court as such.  
24. 
 
Mr. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, learned Sr.ASC who 
appeared on behalf of petitioner, namely, Maqbool Ahmed Lehri in 
CPLA No.51 of 2015, at the very outset submitted that the 
reference against petitioner was not maintainable and was violative 
of the mandate of Article 13(a) of the Constitution and the 
constitutional intendment of protection against double jeopardy. 
The learned counsel submitted that in fact prior to the present 
reference, earlier in the year 2001 also the matter was investigated 
by the NAB, against the petitioner in respect of the same land and 
CP 51&57/15 
16
that the matter remained pending before the NAB upto the year 
2003, however, since not enough evidence could be collected 
during the investigation to make out, a prima facie, case against 
the petitioner, an application was accordingly submitted before the 
concerned Accountability Court and the proceedings were thus 
closed through Court’s order dated 02.6.2003 and that the NAB 
authorities informed the petitioner of the closure of the 
investigation through their letter dated 10.6.2003. That the 
petitioner thus enjoyed protection against double jeopardy on the 
principle of auter foix acquit and under the mandate of Article 13 of 
the Constitution and therefore, the present reference, which has 
been filed subsequently on the same facts in respect of the same 
land, is not maintainable. He submitted that the provisions of 
section 9(c) of the NAB Ordinance are not analogous to that of 
section 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel 
submitted that petitioner Maqbool Ahmed Lehri in executing the 
lease dated 06.5.1990 has merely followed the orders of the two 
relevant Ministers and the Chief Minister of the Province whereas 
he only chaired the meeting of the Governing Body, QDA where the 
repeated orders/directives of the Chief Minister for conveying land 
to Sultan Ahmed were approved/confirmed unanimously. Learned 
counsel further submitted that the transaction was processed and 
channeled through the concerned functionaries of the relevant 
department before the same was approved by the Governing Body 
of QDA. Learned counsel emphasized that neither Sultan Ahmed in 
whose favour the land was conveyed is related to petitioner 
Maqbool Ahmed Lehri, nor is there any allegation of receiving any 
gratification or any favour from Sultan Ahmed by the petitioner. He 
submitted that reference is mala fide and ill motivated and the 
same is not maintainable on the touch stone of Article 13 of the 
CP 51&57/15 
17
Constitution, however, the learned High Court has mis-construed 
the relevant provisions of law and erred in treating section 9(c) of 
the NAB Ordinance as analogous to Section 63 of the Criminal 
Procedure Code. The learned ASC submitted that the learned High 
Court not only refused to quash the proceedings and to grant pre-
arrest bail to the petitioner but has in fact, in dismissing the 
petition, dealt with and treated the same as an appeal against 
conviction and have given finding of far reaching consequences by 
pre-determining the guilt of the petitioner. Learned counsel 
submitted that in facts and circumstances of the case, leave may 
be granted against the impugned judgment and the interim pre-
arrest bail granted to the petitioner be confirmed.  
25. 
 
Mr. Kamran Murtaza, learned ASC for the petitioner in 
CPLA 57 of 215, namely, Ali Muhammad Baloch, submitted that 
the reference against the said petitioner is wholly unfounded and 
totally baseless. He submitted that neither petitioner Ali 
Muhammad Baloch has passed any order nor has he made any 
conscious decision through the two letters said to have been 
written by him. He submitted that petitioner Ali Muhammad 
Baloch merely conveyed the orders of the Chief Minister for deposit 
of the price of the land. Learned counsel submitted that in so far 
as the bifurcation of the land into commercial and residential is 
concerned, the same was affected by the Incharge Town Planning, 
QDA and not by the petitioner Ali Muhammad Baloch, and further 
that the entire amount of the land price was deposited by Sultan 
Ahmed and nothing remained due and outstanding on account 
thereof. Learned counsel prayed for grant of leave to the petitioner. 
26. 
 
On the other hand, Mr.Nasir Mahmood Mughal, the 
learned Special Prosecutor NAB, supported the impugned 
judgment and opposed the grant of leave to the petitioners. He 
CP 51&57/15 
18
submitted that neither is the reference barred under Article 13 of 
the Constitution nor the petitioners are suffering double jeopardy 
in the matter. He submitted that no reference prior to the present 
one was filed against any one in respect of the subject 
land/transactions and only an investigation was initiated in 
respect of the lease of the land executed by the petitioner Maqbool 
Ahmed Lehri on 06.5.1990 which investigation was dropped. 
Whereas the present reference pertains to the sale deed executed 
on 26.4.2007 and there is no question of violation of the principle 
of auter foix acquit. He urged for the refusal of leave and dismissal 
of the petitions.  
27. 
 
From the facts as narrated and analyzed hereinabove, 
the deep involvement of petitioner Maqbool Ahmed Lehri in the 
illegal and apparently mala fide and dishonest sale of the land is 
quite obvious. The prosecution has, through the material placed 
before this Court and discussed above, been able to make out, a 
prima facie, case of the existence of dishonest intention of personal 
gain on the part of the petitioner Maqbool Ahmed Lehri. Whereas 
the said petitioner not only failed to make out a good prima facie 
ground for grant of bail but has also failed to demonstrate that the 
reference filed against him has been filed with ulterior motive for 
causing injury to his reputation, and not for furthering the ends of 
justice, and is based on false and malicious allegations to 
victimize, disgrace or dishonour him. 
28. 
 
There is no question of double jeopardy or violation of 
the mandate of Article 13(a) of the Constitution in the present case 
as no reference other than the present one has ever been filed 
against any one in respect of the subject land/transaction. Indeed 
investigation in respect of a lease deed executed by the petitioner 
Maqbool Ahmed Lehri while he was Mayor, MCQ was initiated by 
CP 51&57/15 
19
the NAB authorities, however, as noted above, the same was closed 
for lack of sufficient evidence as such, as permissible in terms of 
clause (c) of Section 9 of the NAB Ordinance, which reads as 
under:- 
“(c) 
If after completing the investigation of an offence 
against a holder of public office or any other person, the 
Chairman NAB is satisfied that no prima facie case is 
made out against him and the case may be closed, the 
Chairman NAB shall refer the matter to a Court for 
approval and for the release of the accused, if in custody. 
 
Neither any reference was filed or pending as a result of such 
investigation before the Accountability Court nor was the Court 
thus seized of  the matter. In any event, the present reference has 
been filed in respect of a separate transaction wherein sale deed 
dated 26.4.2007 has been executed by QDA, after 17 years, of the 
execution of lease deed dated 06.5.1990, executed by the petitioner 
Maqbool Ahmed Lehri as Mayor, MCQ.  
29. 
 
In view of the forgoing, we do not find any justification 
for interfering with the impugned judgment. Leave is therefore, 
refused. CPLA No.51 of 2015 stands dismissed.  
30. 
 
However, the prosecution has failed to place before us 
any material to demonstrate, prima facie, guilt of petitioner Ali 
Muhammad Baloch, and has in fact failed to make out a prima 
facie reasonable case to charge the said petitioner for an offence 
under section 9 of the NAB Ordinance  so that pre-arrest bail may 
be refused to him. The allegations against petitioner Ali 
Muhammad Baloch, are that he wrote letters dated 14.11.2003 
and 18.9.2004 to Sultan Ahmed and that he bifurcated the land 
into commercial and residential categories and in fact designated a 
larger potion thereof as residential. It is also alleged that said 
petitioner neither confirmed deposit of full value/price of the land 
before executing the subject sale deed, nor did he advise the 
Finance Branch for recovery of the balance sale consideration 
CP 51&57/15 
20
amount. As rightly submitted by Mr.Kamran Murtaza, the learned 
ASC that through the aforesaid two letters, the petitioner Ali 
Muhammad Baloch neither made any conscious order or decision 
nor has he otherwise made any order or decision in the matter. On 
the contrary, through letter dated 14.11.2003, he has in fact 
informed Sultan Ahmed that the determination of the value of the 
land falls within the purview of the Governing Body, QDA, and the 
matter shall be placed before the Governing Body in its meeting, 
and merely advised him to deposit 5% of the “tentative cost” at the 
previously agreed rates, so that the matter may be placed before 
the Governing Body. Whereas through letter dated 18.9.2004, the 
petitioner Ali Muhammad Baloch has merely conveyed to Sultan 
Ahmed the decision/order of the Chief Minister of restoring 
permission to deposit the price of land at the agreed rate and 
directed him to deposit the amount within three months. The 
above two letters clearly did not contain any decision or order 
made by petitioner Ali Muhammad Baloch in the matter, and 
therefore, he cannot, prima facie, be held responsible for the sale of 
the land. So far as the bifurcation of the land into commercial and 
residential is concerned, the same as can be seen from the record 
before us, was done by Incharge Town Planning, QDA, and no 
material has been placed before us to show any involvement of the 
petitioner therein, whereas the balance amount of the sale price 
has been deposited purportedly by Sultan Ahmed seemingly, before 
filing of the reference. It is not even alleged that petitioner Ali 
Muhammad Baloch has, in any way, benefited from the 
transaction, absolutely no allegation of illegal gratification has 
been made against him. We, therefore, are of the view that arrest of 
the petitioner Ali Muhammad Baloch at this stage is not justified 
and would therefore, convert CPLA No.57 of 2015 into an appeal 
CP 51&57/15 
21
and dispose of the same by confirming the interim bail granted to 
him by this Court through order dated 30.1.2015. 
31. 
 
Before parting with the judgment, we may however 
observe that the observations made hereinbefore are tentative in 
nature and shall have no bearing on the trial of the case before the 
Accountability Court. Similarly, the observations made by the 
learned High Court of Balochistan in the impugned judgment shall 
also have no bearing on the trial.   
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad the 
Announced in open Court on ________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge  
 
‘APPROVED FOR REPORTING’ 
