IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
 
(Original Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE IFTIKHAR  MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED 
 
 
SUO MOTO CASE NO. 11 OF 2011 
(Action taken on the news clippings 
regarding scandal of billions of rupees of 
National Police Foundation Land) 
 
 
 
Voluntarily appeared: 
Mr. Rauf Kalasra, Editor (Inv.), Daily Dunya 
 
For the Applicants : 
Raja M. Ibrahim Satti, Sr. ASC and 
(aggrieved by NPF): 
Mr. M. Munir Peracha, Sr. ASC  
(in CMA 2895/13) 
 
 
 
 
Sh. M. Suleman, ASC (in CMA 3274/13) 
 
 
 
 
Ms. Shahida Kausar, SP (in CMA 3273/13) 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Liaqat Ali (in HRC No.18269-P/2011) 
 
 
 
 
Mst. Zahida Bibi (in CMA 2755/2011) 
Dr. Aslam Khaki, ASC (CMA 4038/13) 
Mr. Ishtiaq Ahmad Raja, ASC (CMA 3030/13) 
Ch. Khalid Rasheed, SP Traffic (CMA 2913/13) 
 
On Court Notice: 
 
For Ex. Officials  : 
Mr. Hamid Khan, Sr. ASC  
of NPF  
 
 
Mr. Waqar Rana, ASC  
 
 
 
 
Mr. M. S. Khattak, AOR with 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad Khan, Ex. MD 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Laeeq Ahmad Khan, Ex. Director 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Khuda Bakhsh, Ex. Dy. Director 
 
For NPF 
 
: 
Syed Asghar Hussain Sabzwari, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Siddiqui, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Syed Safdar Hussain, AOR 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Tariq Hanif Joiya, Secretary/Dir.(Housing)  
 
 
 
 
Mr. Zahid Mehmood, Ex.M.D. 
 
 
 
 
 
Kh. Siddique Akbar, Ex-Secy. Interior  
 
 
 
 
Mr. Bani Amin Khan, IGP, Islamabad 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Zafar Ahmad Qureshi, Former MD NPF 
 
For FIA 
Mr. Muhammad Azam Khan, Addl. DG (Law) 
 
 
SMC No. 11/2011 
2 
 
For M/s. Land Linkers 
Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, Sr. ASC 
Mr. Faisal Naqvi, ASC with 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Anjum Aqeel Khan, Ex-MNA 
 
On behalf of Allottees  
Syed Ali Zafar, ASC 
of more than one plot 
Mr. Zahir Nawaz Cheema, ASC 
(CMA Nos. 3686, 3689-3692 & 3706-3716/13) 
 
Mr. Sana Ullah Zahid, ASC 
Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
(CMA Nos. 3741/2013 
Mr. M. Ashraf Shah, DSP 
(CMA No. 3328/2013) 
Syed Rafaqat Mustafa, 
(CMA No. 3684/2013) 
Syed Pervaiz Kandhari 
(CMA No. 3740/2013) 
Mr. Muhammad Zaman, Ex. Site Engr. 
(CMA 4030/2013) 
M/s. Afzal Shigri, Sultan Azam Temori, 
Sikandar Hayat and Abdul Hannan (in person) 
 
Dates of hearings  
22.5.2013, 30.5.2013, 11.06.2013, 
12.06.2013, 13.06.2013, 14.06.2013, 
25.6.2013 & 02.07.2013 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, J.-  A confidential 
inquiry report was submitted to the Secretary Interior, Islamabad 
by National Police Foundation (NPF) against Anjum Aqeel Khan, 
MNA/Proprietor of M/s. Land Linkers.  It was alleged in the said 
report that Anjum Aqeel Khan, in connivance with four former NPF 
officers, namely, Iftikhar Ahmed Khan (Managing Director), Abdul 
Hannan, Khuda Bakhsh (Additional Directors) and Laeeq Ahmed 
Khan as Director Land had committed a fraud of rupees six billion 
with NPF during the procurement of the land for NPF Housing 
Society in E-11, Islamabad as a ‘broker’.  This story was published 
by Mr. Rauf Kalasra, a journalist, in “Express Tribune” dated 
SMC No. 11/2011 
3 
30.1.2011 under the heading “Secret probe implicates MNA in 
Rs. 6 billion scam”.  The matter was registered initially as HRC 
No.2888-G of 2011 and report was called from the Secretary 
Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan.  It was, inter-alia, 
stated in the report that during the course of enquiry, the relevant 
record of the NPF had been perused.  Statements of different 
officers of NPF and other witnesses were recorded.  Mr. Anjum 
Aqeel Khan was also confronted with the allegations.  During 
inquiry proceedings on 22.2.2011 everything was discussed in 
detail and  Anjum Aqeel Khan finally gave undertaking which was 
countersigned by the Director Housing, for final settlement of the 
accounts.  As per undertaking Anjum Aqeel Khan was ready to 
surrender crystal courts and was ready to pay the price of 126 
kanals land.  However, further enquiry to determine the act of 
omission/commission on the part of the former officers of NPF and 
Anjum Aqeel Khan was going on and the officers involved were 
called to join inquiry on 28.2.2011  at Lahore.  After perusal of the 
said report a comprehensive report was called from the Secretary 
Interior and Chairman NPF.  Accordingly, Mr. Zafar Ahmad 
Qureshi, the then Managing Director, National Police Foundation, 
submitted a comprehensive report on 4.6.2011. 
2. 
 
In the above said report the gist of allegations was 
stated as under:- 
 
 
“Gist of Allegations 
SMC No. 11/2011 
4 
During the procurement of land for the 
development of housing scheme in section E-11 
Islamabad, the company of Anjum Aqeel Khan, 
(presently MNA) namely M/s Land Linkers was 
chosen.  The officers/officials of NPF had 
extended undue favours to Anjum Aqeel Khan in 
the process of the procurement of land.  He had 
been paid millions of rupees by NPF without 
getting equivalent land at the relevant time.  
Resultantly NPF had to face huge losses.” 
 
The 
report 
further 
shows 
that 
during 
the 
enquiry 
proceedings, the relevant record of the NPF as well as NPF Housing 
Scheme, E-11, Islamabad was consulted.  The concerned officers 
were also interviewed and their version was also obtained.  After 
discussing the working of National Police Foundation, the 
introduction of NPF Housing Scheme E-11, Islamabad, the 
introduction of M/s. Land Linkers, the charter of duties of the 
officers responsible for the procurement of land, etc., the mode of 
procurement of Lands, etc., the irregularities committed in the 
process of procurement, etc. and the terms of settlement between 
Anjum Aqeel Khan and the National Police Foundation, the inquiry 
officer Mr. Zafar Qureshi, the then M.D.  concluded as under:- 
1. 
“The mandate of the undersigned was confined to hold a 
fact 
finding 
enquiry 
to 
unearth 
the 
irregularities 
committed in the process of procurement and to quantify 
the loss faced by NPF as a result of these irregularities. 
2. 
During the course of enquiry, a number of serious 
irregularities have been found committed by senior 
position holders of NPF showing their gross negligence 
SMC No. 11/2011 
5 
and in-competency in the process of procurement at 
different times.  The detail of which has been discussed at 
length in the preceding paras. 
3. 
All these officers of NPF who had committed irregularities 
in the procurement of land had either been retired from the 
service or left the organization. 
4. 
All the agreements made for the procurement of land at all 
times were vague in nature and they did not contain any 
final cut off date for the supply of land and settlement of 
accounts by NPF with M/s Land Linkers. 
5. 
The land procured through M/s Land Linkers was neither 
finally quantified by the previous administration of NPF 
till 2010 nor any effort was made to resolve the issues of 
shortage of land/rendition of accounts with M/s Land 
Linkers. 
6. 
Anjum Aqeel Khan had entered into an agreement through 
which he has made good all the shortfall of land. 
7. 
Anjum Aqeel Khan arranged an agreement between Tahir 
Mehmood Khan etc. and NPF to pay off the liability of 
Rs.353.00 million approximately to 59 affecttees after a 
period of eleven years. 
8. 
The present outstanding liability of Anjum Aqeel Khan is 
126 kanals.  Anjum Aqeel Khan had submitted undertaking 
to pay off the price of this land after determination of its 
worth by the Committee of Administration of NPF. 
9. 
Audits were held every year, the affiliation transactions 
were never audited for stated reasons that nothing was 
paid to Anjum Aqeel Khan. 
10. 
During the course of this enquiry, long outstanding 
issues/disputes of NPF has been resolved and NPF has 
been benefited with the colossal amount of Rs.6.00 billion 
approximately in shape of land.  The undersigned has no 
hesitation to admit that the notice taken by Honourable 
Chief Justice of Pakistan facilitated the recovery of huge 
amount after lapse of eleven years”. 
SMC No. 11/2011 
6 
 
The said report came up before one of us (Iftikhar Muhammad 
Chaudhry, C.J.) in Chamber when the following order was passed. 
 
“A perusal of report indicates that a 
considerable amount belonging to allottees of the 
plots, National Police Foundation and employees of 
the Police has not been counted for completely.  
Even now matter is being postponed on the basis of 
undertaking etc. by the owners of M/s Land Linkers 
from whom property was purchased.  Thus, it is a 
case where protection to the property of NPF and 
allottees has not been provided, therefore, case may 
be 
registered 
under 
Article 
184(3) 
of 
the 
Constitution and notices be issued to: 
(i) 
Chairman, NPF, holding the charge presently 
and during the period when the property was 
purchased from M/s Land Linkers. 
 
(ii) 
Owner of M/s Land Linkers, through 
Secretary Interior. 
They should appear and file comprehensive 
statements about the allegations made against 
them.  However, those who have retired from NPF 
but otherwise were responsible for the illegalities, 
should also be served upon through official 
agencies.  Put up in Court on 15.06.2011.” 
 
 
3. 
 
The matter was accordingly registered as SMC No. 11 of 
2011 and was heard in Court on 21.6.2011.  Relevant portion from 
the order dated 21.6.2011 reads as follows: 
“Capt. 
(R) 
Zafar 
Ahmed 
Qureshi, 
Managing 
Director, National Police Foundation has appeared 
and stated that he has conducted a preliminary 
inquiry, pointing out the illegalities/ irregularities in 
SMC No. 11/2011 
7 
the affairs of purchase of land in National Police 
Foundation and on the basis of the same he is 
approaching the Secretary, Ministry of Interior to 
convene 
a 
meeting 
of 
the 
Committee 
of 
Administration, to ensure that matter should be 
dealt with strictly in accordance with law, without 
causing any prejudice to either of the parties. 
However, he requests that in order to do the needful, 
he needs some time. 
2. 
 
It is made clear that no one is above the 
law, whosoever he may be. If there is any violation 
of rules/regulations or illegalities/ irregularities or 
there is any element of corruption or corrupt 
practices, in purchase of land by the persons who 
were at the relevant time in the helm of affairs, the 
law shall take its own course against them.” 
 
 
4. 
 
The matter was accordingly registered as SMC No. 11 of 
2011 and was heard in Court on 21.6.2011.  During pendency of the 
matter newspaper Daily Duniya, Rawalpindi published a news item 
with the following captions:- 
 
 ﯽﺿارا ﯽﮐ ںﻮﺑرا ﻮﮐ ﻞﯿﻘﻋ ﻢﺠﻧا ﮯﺳ هﺪﮨﺎﻌﻣ ہﯿﻔﺧ ﮯﻧ ہﻠﺧاد یﺮﭨﺮﮑﯿﺳ" 
ید ﺮﮐ ﺲﭘاو- 
 ﺖﻣﻮﮑﺣﻞﺒﻗ زور سد ﮯﺳ ﮯﻧﻮﮨ ﻢﺘﺧ  ﯽﺟ ﯽﺋآ ﮟﯿﻣ ےﺪﮨﺎﻌﻣ ہﯿﻔﺧ ﮯﻟاوﮯﻧﻮﮨ
ﮟﯿﮨ ﻞﻣﺎﺷ ﯽﮭﺑ یڈ ﻢﯾا ﮯﮐ ﻒﯾا ﯽﭘ ﻦﯾا روا ﻦﯿﻣﺎﯿﻨﺑ 
 ﻖﺑﺎﺳ دﻮﺟوﺎﺑ ﮯﮐ ﻮﭨﻮﻣ وﻮﺳﮯﯿﺌﻟ ﺎﻤﮐ ںﻮﺑرا ﮯﻧ ﯽﻠﺒﻤﺳا ﻦﮐر- 2011  ﮟﯿﻣ
آ ﺮﭘ مﺎﻋ ﺮﻈﻨﻣﭘ ﻮﮐ مﺎﺠﻧا لﮉﻨﯿﮑﺳ ﻻاو ﮯﻧ"۔ﺎﯿﮔ ﭻﻨﮩ 
 
5.  
As the matter was pending, the same was again taken 
up and notices were issued.  On 26.4.2013 Mr. Tariq Haneef Joiya, 
Director Housing-cum-Secretary, National Police Foundation 
appeared and stated that Mr. Zahid Mahmood DG, who had retired 
on 29.3.2013, had entered into an agreement with Anjum Aqeel 
SMC No. 11/2011 
8 
Khan, MNA, which has retained in safe custody.  He was required 
to place the same on record along with comments on the news 
caption.  In pursuance of order dated 21.6.2011 a list of the allottees 
was also placed on record which indicated that the statement made 
by Mr. Zafar Ahmed Qureshi, MD was correct that the plots were 
allotted more than their entitlement to the police officers and even 
plots were allotted to some civilians.  A report was also called from 
him as to what action was taken against them.    
 
6. 
 
The matter was again taken up by this Court on 
29.4.2013 when the following order was passed: 
“Mr. Tariq Hanif Joiya, Secretary, Committee 
of Administration, NPF, has filed reply (CMA 
No.2456/13), which we have gone through in a 
cursory manner and we consider it appropriate to 
issue notice to Mr. Zahid Mahmood, Former 
Managing Director, National Police Foundation.  
2. 
Mr. K.M. Siddiq Akbar, Chairman, ex-officio, 
Mr. Bani Amin Khan, Inspector General of Police, 
Islamabad and Mr. Tariq Hanif Joiya, Secretary, 
Committee of Administration, NPF Islamabad, are 
present.   Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, Sr. ASC has 
entered appearance on behalf of Mr. Anjum Aqeel 
Khan, Ex-MNA, who himself is also present.  
3. 
Raja 
Muhammad 
Ayub, 
former 
S.P., 
appeared and stated that a plot had been allotted on 
which a boundary wall has already been constructed 
but he is being dispossessed by the Foundation.  
4. 
Mr. 
Tariq 
Hanif 
Joiya, 
the 
Secretary, 
Committee of Administration, NPF informed that as 
far as the Foundation is concerned, it has nothing to 
SMC No. 11/2011 
9 
do with it, because there is a litigation going on 
between him and one Nisar Ahmed, who is the owner 
of the property, in the Civil Court.  
5. 
Issue notice to Nisar Ahmad for the next date 
of hearing. In the meanwhile, the incumbent M.D. is 
directed to effect the service upon the allottees to 
whom more than one plot has been allowed despite of 
terms and conditions that one person was allowed 
one plot only. It is informed by Mr. Tariq Hanif Joiya 
that in pursuance of earlier proceedings, a case was 
registered and now proceedings have been started 
for withdrawal of the same. The D.G., FIA is directed 
not to take any action till the pendency of this case.  
6. 
Mr. Anjum Aqeel Khan and others noted 
hereinabove except the allottees, are required to 
furnish their reply of the news clipping appeared in 
the daily “Dunya” on the next date of hearing.  
7. 
Mst. Zahida Durrani, appeared and stated 
that she has already been impleaded party but so far 
no plot has been given to her. The National Police 
Foundation is directed to furnish the list of the 
affectees along with their grievances against the 
Foundation because of non-allotment of the plot. 
Notice shall also be issued to all of them.  
8. 
Mr. Rauf Kalasra, Editor Investigation, the 
daily “Dunya” appeared and stated that in the year 
2011, he had disclosed the news of fraudulent 
transactions and few days before again when a new 
agreement, which according to him is a bogus one, he 
on having coming to know about the same disclosed 
this news again. Today during the hearing, he has 
stated that important facts are being concealed from 
this Court, therefore, permission be accorded to him 
to place on record the relevant documents to provide 
assistance to this Court. Order accordingly. 
SMC No. 11/2011 
10
 
7. 
 
On 30.5.2013 this Court issued notice to Mr. Zafar 
Ahmad Qureshi, Ex-MD who had prepared the inquiry report, and 
also made the following direction: 
“2. 
Prima facie it appears that a good 
number of allotments have been made in 
favour of various allottees contrary to the 
provisions of scheme of the Administration for 
the 
National 
Police 
Foundation 
dated 
14.03.1975, therefore, the Secretary, NPF is 
directed to furnish the list of all those allottees 
in both the schemes to ascertain as to whether 
the allotments have been made in their favour 
according to the scheme noted hereinbefore or 
otherwise.” 
 
8. 
 
After issuing of notices, we have heard Mr. Rauf 
Kalasara, Auditor (Investigation) Daily Duniya, Mr. Zafar Ahmad 
Qureshi, former MD, NPF, Mr. Muhammad Azam Khan, Addl. DG 
FIA, learned counsel for the NPF, Ex-officials of NPF, M/s. Land 
Linkers,  and other necessary parties and have gone through the 
reports/record made available before us. 
 
9. 
 
Mr. Rauf Kalasara, Auditor (Investigation) Daily 
Duniya, who has published a news item in the Express Tribune, 
entered his voluntary appearance and while supporting his report 
published in the aforesaid newspaper submitted that Anjum Aqeel 
Khan acted as a broker for the National Police Foundation through 
his firm, namely, Land Linkers and his job was only to find out land 
for the Foundation’s Residential Colony; that said Anjum Aqeel 
SMC No. 11/2011 
11
Khan got allotted hundreds of plots to his nominees without any 
formal agreement and the Foundation allotted these plots in 
accordance with the formula prepared by the Capital Development 
Authority i.e. 54:46 governing the affiliation of the private land 
with Government Housing Scheme, according to which, a private 
land owner has to surrender and provide 46% of his land for roads 
and streets; that Anjum Aqeel Khan was allotted 162 kanals of 
developed land and as per this ratio he had to provide 300 kanals 
land to the Foundation but he had provided only 70 kanals of land 
and 229 kanals land has yet to be provided by him on account of 
affiliation of land and an additional 100 kanals land on account of 
double purchase; that said Anjum Aqeel Khan had not transferred 
329 kanals of land to the National Police Foundation and that said 
Anjum Aqeel Khan has not only defrauded the National Police 
Foundation by usurping its funds of billions of rupees but also 
cheated the general public. 
 
10. 
 
 Mr. Hamid Khan, learned Senior ASC appearing on 
behalf of Iftikhar Ahmad Khan, Laeeq Ahmad Khan, Abdul 
Hannan, Khuda Bakhsh and four others, ex-officials of the National 
Police Foundation, submitted that the aforesaid ex-officials of the 
National Police Foundation had acted in good faith for the benefit 
and interest of the Foundation; made the housing scheme 
successful when nobody was prepared to purchase a plot in the said 
scheme  and the alleged irregularities or lapses are not at all 
SMC No. 11/2011 
12
attributable to any mala fide or deliberate intend on their part; that 
the allegations or adverse statements made against them in the 
inquiry report are categorically denied; that the conclusions drawn 
by the inquiry officer are not supported by the facts and record and 
suffer from inconsistencies, contradictions, misinterpretation and 
misreading of available  record and that in such circumstances the 
aforesaid ex-officials of the National Police Foundation are not 
responsible for the acts of omission and commission as highlighted 
in the inquiry report.   
 
11. 
 
Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, learned Senior ASC has 
appeared on behalf of Anjum Aqeel Khan and contended that the 
matter was investigated, FIR was also registered, civil agreement 
was executed, as such no action is required to be taken by this 
Court since the interest of the Foundation has been safeguarded by 
executing agreement by Anjum Aqeel Khan in favour of the 
Foundation; that National Police Foundation is neither a 
Government department nor a corporate body and instead it is a 
self-financing organization originally established in the year 1975 
so as to generate funds for the benefits of both retired and serving 
members of the police forces and in such an eventuality National 
Police Foundation established a housing scheme, namely, National 
Police Foundation Housing Society in sector E-11 in Islamabad 
which has chequered history as the Federal Government in the year 
1968 decided to acquire 15000 acres of land for Islamabad city 
SMC No. 11/2011 
13
excluding the area falling within the Golra Revenue Estate; that the 
said land was acquired by the CDA in the year 1968 but the CDA 
failed to pay full compensation for the built up area with the result 
that the affectees refused to vacate the land; that in the year 1980 
CDA decided to acquire portions of Golra Revenue Estate falling 
within sectors E-12, F-11 & F-12 and the affectees of the said land 
were allotted plots in sector E-11 in compensation of acquisition of 
their land; that when the NPF decided to establish the society in 
sector E-11 in the year 1989 presuming that the purchase of rights 
from the allottees would be sufficient but it  became evident that 
mere purchase of rights was insufficient since possession of the 
land invariably lay with other parties who had no intention to 
vacate the possession and in such circumstances NPF to have local 
assistance in acquiring possession of land and made a contact with 
Anjum Aqeel Khan who was operating through an unregistered 
firm, namely, M/s Land linkers and was a notable of Golra village 
and that NPF had acquired approximately 540 of land prior to 
engaging M/s Land Linkers  but could not take possession thereof 
and today if society is owner in possession of 1325 kanals of land, it 
is due to the efforts of Anjum Aqeel Khan; that NPF sought 
assistance of Anjum Aqeel Khan in two different ways i.e. getting 
possession of the land of which title was already with NPF and 
obtained additional land for the NPF both through the purchase of 
allottee’s and affectee’s rights regarding which series of agreements 
were entered into between the parties; that Anjum Aqeel Khan 
SMC No. 11/2011 
14
arranged possessory rights for all the land which NPF had 
purchased from allottees and arranged purchase and possession of 
approximately 608 kanals of land; that Mr. Anjum Aqeel Khan also 
arranged two other types of land which form part of the NPF i.e. 
the property which fell within the boundaries of the Golra Revenue 
Estate in E-11 i.e. exempted land, part of exempted land adjacent to 
NPF land was purchased by Anjum Aqeel Khan in his personal 
capacity and subsequently offered to for affiliation, i.e. for inclusion 
within the formal bodies of the NPF, in exchange for plots within 
the NPF and the property, title of which was disputed; that Anjum 
Aqeel Khan had made payment over and above the agreed rates 
with the Foundation to the persons from whom the land was 
purchased which approximately comes to Rs.200 million;  that 
Anjum Aqeel Khan of M/s Land Linkers did not act as seller to the 
society but instead 
acted as intermediary who arranged 
transactions in favour of NPF which entered into agreements 
directly or indirectly with the sellers and if there is any shortfall, 
Anjum Aqeel Khan is not responsible for that and cannot be 
pressed upon to make good all the alleged losses suffered by NPF; 
that according to the record NPF has fully been compensated for all 
the losses suffered by it as the people, who took payment for land 
which was not ultimately transferred to NPF, have now repaid to 
the NPF all amounts received by them, as such, NPF has suffered 
no loss; that after the decision of this Court regarding shortage of 
21 kanals of land option was available with the NPF for filing of suit 
SMC No. 11/2011 
15
of damages against original sellers but having failed to do so NPF 
cannot demand said land due to its own neglect; that so far as 
shortage of 21 kanals 19 marlas of duplicate land is concerned, it 
was on the basis of inadvertence and that the said shortcoming had 
never been agitated by the NPF and had only raised general 
allegation of a shortfall in land to which Anjum Aqeel Khan has 
responded that if any shortfall was shown he would make it good; 
that as far as the allegation regarding affiliation of land against 
Anjum Aqeel Khan is concerned, the plots were allotted to the 
nominees of Anjum Aqeel Khan without any formal agreement and 
it was incumbent upon the society to adopt a more formal 
arrangement in relation to the affiliation of land and the 
subsequent allotment of plots then that obligations was on the 
society and not on Anjum Aqeel Khan; that the allegations 
regarding Crystal Court are misleading and unsustainable and that 
the inquiry report submitted by Mr. Qureshi misrepresents certain 
facts and thus fails to paint full picture of the matter as is evident 
from the progress report prepared by the FIA.  Learned counsel for 
Anjum Aqeel Khan finally contended that Anjum Aqeel Khan is 
ready and willing to abide by the terms of the settlement 
agreements signed by him with the NPF and he would have no 
objection if these agreements are set aside by this court and the 
entire matter is re-examined by a professional firm of auditors and 
in such an eventuality Anjum Aqeel Khan is fully confident that 
such re-examination would only substantiate his stance.   
SMC No. 11/2011 
16
 
12. 
 
Mr. Tariq Hanif Joiya, Secretary, Committee of 
Administration, NPF, filed reply (CMA No. 2456/2013).  He has 
stated in his application that the then Director Housing Mr. Shahid 
Iqbal calculated the loss of six billion of NPF, but during 
investigation he failed to satisfy the investigation team regarding 
his calculation of six billions loss.  However, as per record the 
transaction of business was only for Rs.520,284,375/- and that the 
calculation made by the then Director Housing as six billion loss of 
NPF is not correct as per available record of the housing 
directorate.  He further stated that as per direction of this 
Honourable Court the list of high ups who had allotted more than 
one plot up to ten plots was submitted before the Committee of 
Administration and also consulted the legal expert, a request was 
also sent to a prominent Advocate of Supreme Court Mr. 
Muhammad Akram Sheikh for the guidance so that action be taken 
against them but despite all out efforts no one endorsed the NPF 
for action against them as per law; that presently, the plots which 
were allotted to the High ups and civilians (more than one plot up 
to 10) have been disposed off in two, three and more hands and the 
purchasers have constructed the houses over there and are living 
with their families.  However, efforts are under way to address the 
issue as directed by the Apex Court as early as possible and action 
will be taken against those high ups and civilians as per law; that 
after action was initially taken by MD NPF, namely, Mr. Zafar 
SMC No. 11/2011 
17
Ahmad Qureshi, numerous Managing Directors successively 
appointed, dealt with the letter for the withdrawal of the criminal 
case FIR No.17 dated 5.7.2011 under sections 406, 409, 468, 471, 
420, 109 and 5(2) 47 PCA registered with P.S FIA, Islamabad and 
their views and those of the COA comprising well known and well 
reputed Inspectors General of Police, culminated in the settlement 
and resettlement of the issue; that none of the officers had even 
remote connection with the procurement of land, etc. illegally.  In 
the end he has stated that the Suo Moto action by this Honourable 
Court, subsequent investigation by the FIA team and thorough 
inquiries have resulted in the resettlement and the problem is 
resolved in the interest of the Foundation. 
 
13. 
 
Syed Asghar Hussain Sabzwari, Senior Advocate 
Supreme Court, learned counsel for the National Police Foundation 
contended that the Housing scheme was established on commercial 
basis for the beneficiaries/Government servants and general 
public, terms and conditions were prepared at the time of 
establishment of the housing schemes wherein it is clearly 
mentioned at serial No. 2 that an applicant can apply for only one 
plot but it is not clear that the other family members of the said 
applicant are not entitled to get the membership for allotment of 
plot; that as per definition of Article 1 of the Constitution of NPF, 
dependants means wife / wives, dependant parents, dependant 
sons and unmarried daughters of beneficiaries and other relatives 
SMC No. 11/2011 
18
who are so prescribed by the Committee of Administration; that the 
Foundation, as per clause 1 of Article 2 of the Constitution of NPF, 
was responsible to provide all basic facilities to the serving and 
retired beneficiaries and their dependants, as defined in the 
definition such as advance loan or stipend grants to the dependants 
and provide loan for the construction of low cost houses of various 
categories; that in the year 2001 as the Foundation was facing acute 
problems of funds for the development of housing schemes,  a 
meeting was convened under the chairmanship of the then M.D 
National Police Foundation wherein after detailed discussions it 
was resolved that in order to generate funds the membership be 
opened for general public so as to develop E-11 Housing Scheme 
and that in order to safeguard the interest of the Foundation the 
properties of Anjum Aqeel Khan have been mortgaged in favour of 
the National Police Foundation till successful completion of the 
agreement executed in between him and the Police Foundation. 
 
14. 
 
Mr. Bani Amin, Inspector General of Police, Islamabad 
also 
appeared 
and 
submitted 
concise 
statement 
(CMA 
No.2353/2013) in which he has tried to explain the validity/legality 
of settlement agreement dated 4.3.2013.  He submitted that on the 
direction of this Court through order dated 3.6.2011 matter was 
placed before the Committee of Administration of NPF and the 
meeting of the Committee was held on 28.6.2011 and after detailed 
discussion of the issues regarding purchase of land, the Committee 
SMC No. 11/2011 
19
of Administration constituted a Sub-Committee of three IGs, 
namely, Syed Shabbir Ahmad, Hassain Asghar and Dr. Tariq 
Ahmad Khokhar.  The Sub-Committee submitted a report to the 
Committee of Administration which was objected to by Anjum 
Aqeel Khan, therefore, another Sub-Committee comprising the 
Secretary Interior, M.D. National Police Foundation, Inspector 
General of Police, Islamabad and Director Housing NPF was 
constituted.  The said Sub-Committee discussed all the issues with 
Anjum Aqeel Khan at length and solution proposed was placed 
before the Committee of Administration.  In the end he submitted 
that he being nominated member of the Sub-Committee by the 
Committee of Administration took part in the negotiations of 
outstanding issues with Anjum Aqeel Khan and proposed viable 
solution in good faith and in the best interest of National Police 
Foundation. 
 
15. 
 
Secretary Interior, Khawaja Siddique Akbar was also 
given notice but he has not submitted his reply.  Though he made 
his appearance before the Court on some dates of hearing but when 
he was called for his arguments, he was found absent. 
 
16. 
 
Syed Ali Zafar, learned Counsel for the allottees of more 
than one plot in the Housing Scheme, who have also filed 
miscellaneous applications in the instant proceedings, contended 
that none of the ingredients for the exercise of jurisdiction by this 
Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic 
SMC No. 11/2011 
20
of Pakistan, 1973 are available in the facts and circumstances of the 
case; that the applicants are bona fide purchasers of the plots and 
no allegation has either been made against the applicants or proved 
during the inquiry or investigation that they had obtained more 
than one plots unlawfully and that the only allegation made 
regarding purchase of plot was against the management of National 
Police Foundation; that as the applicants never remained part of 
the National Police Foundation or a member of the Board of 
Directors or Committee of Administration thereof, as such, the 
allegations are not relatable to the applicants and that in such 
circumstances, he has prayed that since the applicants are bona 
fide purchasers of the plots for consideration, therefore, any 
observation made against the applicants will damage their 
reputation and the notice against the applicants may be withdrawn 
in the interest of justice.   
 
17. 
 
From the above facts and arguments the following 
issues have cropped up for determination: 
1) 
Whether the National Police Foundation (NPF) is a 
charitable 
Organization, 
if 
yes, 
who 
are 
its 
beneficiaries? 
2) 
Whether the NPF is authorised to launch private 
Housing Schemes, etc. for the general public? 
3) 
Whether the Housing Scheme of E-11 was launched in a 
transparent manner? 
SMC No. 11/2011 
21
4) 
Whether all the agreements/settlement entered into 
between the NPF and M/s. Land Linkers were lawful 
and transparent? 
5) 
Whether the beneficiaries and the private members of 
the housing scheme or their dependants were entitled 
to have more than one plot in any housing scheme 
launched by the NPF? 
6) 
Whether the rights of beneficiaries of NPF were fully 
protected? 
 
18. 
 
Before discussing the aforesaid questions/issues, we 
would first like to determine the question of jurisdiction of this 
Court in such like cases, as urged by Syed Ali Zafar learned counsel 
for the allottees of more than one plot. Article 184(3) of the 
constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, confers 
jurisdiction upon this Court to examine such like matters, under 
the principle of judicial review, where the Government bodies 
exercise their powers in an arbitrary and partisan manner.  In this 
respect we are fortified by the judgment of this Court in Suo Motu 
Case No.13 of 2009 (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 619) wherein it 
has been held as under:- 
“24. 
 It is well-settled that in matters in which the 
Government bodies exercise their contractual powers, 
the principle of judicial review cannot be denied. 
However, in such matters, judicial review is intended 
to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism and it must be 
exercised in larger public interest. It has also been held 
by the Courts that in matters of judicial review the 
basic test is to see whether there is any infirmity in the 
decision making process. It is also a well-settled 
principle of law that since the power of judicial review 
is not an appeal from the decision, the Court cannot 
substitute its decision for that of the decision maker. 
The interference with the decision making process is 
SMC No. 11/2011 
22
warranted where it is vitiated on account of 
arbitrariness, illegality, irrationality and procedural 
impropriety or where it is actuated by mala fides. 
Reference may be made to (1) Ramana Dayaram 
Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India 
(1979) 3 SCC 489; (2) Tata Cellular v. Union of India 
(1994) 6 SCC 651 = AIR 1996 SC 11; (3) Raunaq 
International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. (1999) 1 
SCC 492; (4) Air India Ltd. v, Cochin International 
Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617; (5) Reliance Energy 
Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corpn. 
Ltd. (2007) 8 SCC 1 and (6) judgment dated 24-8-2009 
of the Andhra High Court in Nokia Siemens Networks 
(Pvt.) Ltd. v. Union of India. In Air India Ltd. v. Cochin 
Int., Airport Ltd. (AIR 2000 SC 801), it was held as 
under: 
  
"7. The law relating to award of a contract by 
the State, its corporations and bodies acting as 
instrumentalities 
and 
agencies 
of 
the 
Government has been settled by the decision of 
this Court in R.D. Shetty v. International Airport 
Authority; 
Fertilizer 
Corporation 
Kamgar 
Union v, Union of India; Asstt. Collector, Central 
Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd.; Tata Cellular v. 
Union of India; Ramniklal N. Bhutta v: State of 
Maharashtra and Raunaq International Ltd. v. 
I.V.R. Construction Ltd. The award of contract, 
whether it is by a private party or by a public 
body or the State, is essentially a commercial 
transaction. In arriving at a commercial 
decision considerations which are of paramount 
are commercial considerations. The State can 
choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It 
can fix its own terms of invitation to tender and 
that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It can enter 
into negotiations before finally deciding to 
accept one of the offers made to it. Price need not 
always be the sole criterion for awarding a 
contract. It is free to grant any relaxation, for 
bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions 
permit such a relaxation. It may not accept the 
offer even though it happens to be the highest or 
the lowest. But the State, its corporations, 
instrumentalities and agencies are bound to 
adhere to the norms, standards and procedures 
laid down by them and cannot depart from them 
arbitrarily. 
Though 
that 
decision 
is 
not 
amenable to judicial review, the Court can 
examine the decision making process and 
interfere if, it is found vitiated by mala fides, 
unreasonableness and arbitrariness. The State, 
its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies 
have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. 
Even when some defect is found in the decision 
making process the Court must exercise its 
discretionary, power under Article 226 with 
SMC No. 11/2011 
23
great caution and should exercise it only in 
furtherance of public interest and not merely on 
the making out of a legal point. The Court should 
always keep the larger public interest in mind in 
order to decide whether its intervention is called 
for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion 
that overwhelming public interest requires 
interference, the Court should intervene.” 
  
In Tata Cellular v. Union of India (AIR 1996 SC 11) = 
[(1994) 6 SCC 651], it was held as under:-- 
  
"85. It cannot be denied that the principles of judicial 
review would apply to the exercise of contractual 
powers by Government bodies in order to prevent 
arbitrariness or favoritism. However, it must be 
clearly stated that there are inherent limitations in 
exercise of that power of judicial review. Government 
is the guardian of the finances of the State. It is 
expected to protect the financial interest of the State. 
The right to refuse the lowest or any other tender is 
always available to the Government. But, the principles 
laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution have to be 
kept in view while accepting or refusing a tender. 
There can be no question of infringement of Article 14 if 
the Government tries to get the best person or the best 
quotation. The right to choose cannot be considered to 
be an arbitrary power. Of course, if the said power is 
exercised for any collateral purpose the exercise of that 
power will be struck down. 
  
86. Judicial quest in administrative matters has been 
to find the right balance between the administrative 
discretion to decide matters whether contractual or 
political in nature or issues of social policy; thus they 
are not essentially justifiable and the need to remedy 
any unfairness. Such an unfairness is set right by 
judicial review. 
  
89. Observance of judicial restraint is currently the 
mood in England. The judicial power of review is 
exercised 
to 
rein 
in 
any 
unbridled 
executive 
functioning. The restraint has two contemporary 
manifestations. 
One 
is 
the 
ambit 
of 
judicial 
intervention; the other covers the scope of the court's 
ability to quash an administrative decision on its 
merits. These restraints bear the hallmarks of judicial 
control over administrative action. 
  
90. Judicial review is concerned with reviewing not the 
merits of the decision in support of which the 
application for judicial review is made, but the 
decision-making process itself." 
  
In Sterling Computers Ltd. v. Messrs, M. and N. Publications 
Ltd, (AIR 1996 SC 51), it was held as under:- 
  
SMC No. 11/2011 
24
“19. While exercising the power of judicial review, in 
respect of contracts entered into on behalf of the State, 
the Court is concerned primarily as to whether there 
has been any infirmity in the "decision making 
process". In this connection reference may be made to 
the case of Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. 
Evans, [1982] 3 All ER 141, where it was said that "The 
purpose of judicial review." 
  
"... is to ensure that the individual receives fair 
treatment, and not to ensure that the authority, after 
according fair treatment, reaches on a matter which it 
is authorized or enjoined by law to decide for itself a 
conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the court." 
  
By way of judicial review the court cannot examine the 
details of the terms of the contract which have been 
entered into by the public bodies or the state. Courts 
have inherent limitations on the scope of any such 
enquiry. But at the same time as was said by the House 
of Lords in the aforesaid case, Chief Constable of the 
North Wales Police v. Evans (supra), the Courts can 
certainly examine whether 'decision making process' 
was reasonable, rational not arbitrary and violative of 
Article 14 of the Constitution.  
  
20. If the contract has been entered into without 
ignoring the procedure which can be said to be basic in 
nature and after an objective consideration of different 
options available taking into account the interest of the 
State and the public, then Court cannot act as an 
appellate authority by substituting its opinion in 
respect of selection made for entering into such 
'contract. But, once the procedure adopted by an 
authority for purpose of entering into a contract is held 
to be against the mandate of Article 14 of the 
Constitution, the Courts cannot ignore such action 
saying that the authorities concerned must have some 
latitude or liberty in contractual matters and any 
interference by court amounts to encroachment on the 
exclusive right of the executive to take such decision. 
  
26. The cases aforesaid on which reliance was placed 
on behalf of the appellants, have also reiterated that 
once the State decides to grant any right or privilege to 
others, then there is no escape from the rigour of 
Article 14; the executive does not have an absolute 
discretion, certain precepts and principles have to be 
followed, the public interest being the paramount 
consideration. It has also been' pointed out that for 
securing the public interest one of the methods 
recognised is to invite tenders affording opportunity to 
submit offers for consideration in an objective manner. 
However, there may be cases where in the special facts 
and circumstances and due to compelling reasons 
which must stand the test of Article 14 of the 
Constitution, departure of the aforesaid rule can be 
SMC No. 11/2011 
25
made. This Court while upholding the contracts by 
negotiation in the cases referred to above has 
impressed as to how in the facts and circumstances of 
those cases the decisions taken by the State and the 
authorities concerned were reasonable, rational and in 
the public interest. The decisions taken in those cases 
by the authorities concerned, on judicial scrutiny were 
held to be free from bias, discrimination and under the 
exigencies of the situation then existing to be just and 
proper. On the basis of those judgments it cannot be 
urged that this court has left to the option of the 
authorities concerned whether to invite tenders or not 
according to their own discretion and to award 
contracts ignoring the procedures which are basic in 
nature, taking into account factors which are not only 
irrelevant but detrimental to the public interest." 
  
 
25. A part of the argument vehemently canvassed at 
the bar was that the main purpose of awarding 
contract to this party was to get the CDA land cleared 
off from the illegal occupants, which the CDA was 
unable to do. In this behalf, reference was made to 
agreements containing recitals of payment of different 
sums of money made to certain persons in lieu of their 
vacating such land. According to the aforesaid 
agreements, huge sums of money running into millions 
of rupees were allegedly paid. But, surprisingly, no 
details of payment, such as bank drafts, pay orders, 
cheques, etc. were given in the said agreements. It is 
not believable that such large sums of money were paid 
in cash. Besides, the agreements in question were 
documents not registered in accordance with law. 
There was, so to say, no valid proof of payment 
furnished to our satisfaction. Further, no details of the 
land allegedly in the illegal possession of the land 
grabbers along with the names/number of encroachers 
were provided. Thus, looked at from any angle, 
the transaction appears to be a sham deal. The 
whole exercise appears to be an eyewash. This also 
negates the claim  
 
26. The cases aforesaid on which reliance was placed 
on behalf of the appellants, have also reiterated that 
once the State decides to grant any right or privilege to 
others, then there is no escape from the rigour of 
Article 14; the executive does not have an absolute 
discretion, certain precepts and principles have to be 
followed, the public interest being the paramount 
consideration. It has also been' pointed out that for 
securing the public interest one of the methods 
recognised is to invite tenders affording opportunity to 
submit offers for consideration in an objective manner. 
However, there may be cases where in the special facts 
and circumstances and due to compelling reasons 
which must stand the test of Article 14 of the 
SMC No. 11/2011 
26
Constitution, departure of the aforesaid rule can be 
made. This Court while upholding the contracts by 
negotiation in the cases referred to above has 
impressed as to how in the facts and circumstances of 
those cases the decisions taken by the State and the 
authorities concerned were reasonable, rational and in 
the public interest. The decisions taken in those cases 
by the authorities concerned, on judicial scrutiny were 
held to be free from bias, discrimination and under the 
exigencies of the situation then existing to be just and 
proper. On the basis of those judgments it cannot be 
urged that this court has left to the option of the 
authorities concerned whether to invite tenders or not 
according to their own discretion and to award 
contracts ignoring the procedures which are basic in 
nature, taking into account factors which are not only 
irrelevant but detrimental to the public interest." 
 
The aforesaid findings in the case referred supra is complete 
answer to the argument raised by Syed Ali Zafar Advocate 
regarding jurisdiction of this case to enter into the arena of scrutiny 
of such like cases wherein the Government Bodies exercise their 
contractual powers in an arbitrariness or favouritism manner, thus, 
the exercise of principal of judicial review in the larger public 
interest cannot be denied.  
19. 
 
The first question to be answered in the sequence is 
whether National Police Foundation is a charitable organization 
and if the answer is in yes, who are its beneficiaries?.  If we see the 
origin of the Foundation and efforts made in this behalf from time 
to time we have no doubt in our mind that it is a charitable 
organization from whatever angle it is looked at.  This perception is 
further invigorated by the SRO 334(1)/75 National Police 
Foundation was established under section 5 of the Charitable 
SMC No. 11/2011 
27
Endowments Act, 1890 (VI of 1890).  The said SRO reads as 
follows: 
“S.R.O. 334 (I)/75.—Whereas the Secretary to the 
Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Interior, States 
and Frontier Regions (Interior Division), Islamabad 
has applied for settlement by the Federal Government 
of a scheme for administration of the amount of two 
crores of rupees which is to be applied in trust for a 
charitable purpose to be known as the “National Police 
Foundation” and which is to be vested in the Treasurer 
of Charitable Endowment for Pakistan: 
Now, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred 
by Sub-section (I) of section 5 of the Charitable 
Endowments Act, 1980 (VI of 1980) the Federal 
Government is pleased to settle the scheme set out in 
the schedule below for administration of the said 
National Police Foundation.” 
 
The word “Charitable Purpose” has been defined in the Charitable 
Endowments Act, 1980 as under: 
 
2. Definition: In this Act, “charitable purpose” 
includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief 
and the advancement of any other object of general 
public utility, but does not include a purpose which 
relates exclusively to religious teaching or worship. 
 
The word “beneficiary” has been defined in “The Essential Law 
Dictionary by Amy Hackney Blackwell, as under:- 
 
“Beneficiary. N. Someone who benefits from someone else’s 
act, such as a person for whom property is held in trust, the 
recipient of the proceeds of an insurance policy, or someone 
named in a will as a recipient of property.” 
 
 
In the Black’s Law Dictionary, the word “beneficiary” has been 
defined as under: 
 
“BENEFICIARY. One for whose benefit a trust is 
created; a cestui que trust. 195 N.E. 557, 564, 97 A.L.R. 
1170. A person having the enjoyment of property of 
which a trustee, executor, etc., has the legal possession. 
The person to whom a policy of insurance is payable. 
SMC No. 11/2011 
28
Parrott Estate Co. v. Mc- Laughlin. D.C.Cal., 12 F.Supp. 
23, 25; Odom v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 173 Or. 
435, 145 P.2d 480, 482. One receiving benefit or 
advantage, or one who is in receipt of benefits, profits, 
or advantage. Bauer v. Myers, C.C.A.Kan., 244 F. 902, 
908. For "Favored Beneficiary,". 
 
AIMS AND OBJECTS: 
 
Aims and Objects of the National Police Foundation have 
been mentioned in its Constitution which read as under: 
i) 
To extend and improve medical facilities for serving and 
retired beneficiaries and their dependents as defined in the 
definitions. 
ii) 
To advance, whether as a loan or stipend, grants to the 
dependents of retired or serving beneficiaries for the 
purpose of education at approved Institutions: 
iii) 
To provide for construction of low-cost houses of various 
categories and their sale on terms and conditions to be 
decided 
by 
the 
Committee 
of 
Administration 
to 
beneficiaries whether retired or serving. 
iv) 
To provide for Rest Houses/Centres which the beneficiaries 
and their dependents may use for rest and recreation, at 
such terms and conditions as the Committee may decide. 
v) 
To provide any other facility or help which the Committee of 
Administration may decide from time to time and which 
comes under the broad terms of “welfare” of the 
beneficiaries. 
vi) 
To provide lump-sum grants at a rate to be decided by the 
Committee of Administration in case of death or injury to 
any of the beneficiaries in the line of active duty. 
 
The word “Beneficiaries” has been defined as under:- 
a) 
“Beneficiaries” mean persons of Pakistan domicile subjects of 
States acceded to Pakistan; 
SMC No. 11/2011 
29
i. 
Who have served or are serving in the Police Force of the 
Province of Punjab, Sindh, N.W.F.P., Balochistan, 
National Police Academy, Pakistan Railway Police, 
Islamabad Police, Azad Jammu & Kashmir and Northern 
Area Police as Police officer. 
ii. 
Who have served or are serving in the Federal Police 
Organisation under the control of Director General 
Federal Security Force in the Ministry of Interior, States 
and Frontier regions (Interior Division), Islamabad. 
 
iii. 
Who have served or are serving the Federal Investigation 
Agency, under the control of I.G./S.P.E. Director General 
Federal Investigation Agency in the Ministry of Interior, 
States 
and 
Frontier 
Regions 
(Interior 
Division), 
Islamabad. 
iv. 
Who have served or are serving with executive police 
ranks on the Ministerial Cadre and other Ministerial 
staff of any other offices controlled by the Inspectors 
General of Provinces mentioned in (i) above, or under 
the 
Inspector 
General, 
Special 
Police 
Establishment/Director General, Federal Investigation 
Agency. 
v. 
Who are or have been on deputation to any other 
departments from the police department wherein they 
have retained their permanent lien of service. 
vi. 
Dependents of persons indicated in clause (i) to (v) and; 
b) 
“Dependents” means the wife/wives, dependent parents, 
dependant sons and unmarried daughters of beneficiaries and 
other relatives who are so prescribed by the Committee of 
Administration. 
 
Committee of Administration: 
SMC No. 11/2011 
30
 
Committee of Administration is constituted under Article 3 -1 
(a) of the Constitution of the NPF which consists of fifteen 
members including the Chairman, by virtue of their offices, namely, 
1. 
Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Government of 
Pakistan, Chairman Ex-Officio 
2. 
D.G. FIA, Member/Vice Chairman 
3. 
Inspectors General of Police of all the four 
provinces, Members 
 
4. 
Commandant 
National 
Police 
Academy, 
Islamabad, Member 
5. 
M.D. National Police Foundation, Member 
6. 
Representative of the M/o Finance not below the 
rank of Additional Secretary, Member. 
 
7. 
Representative of the M/o Industries not below 
the rank of Additional Secretary, Member. 
 
8. 
Inspector General of Police, Pakistan Railways, 
Member. 
 
9. 
Inspector General of Police, Azad Jammu & 
Kashmir, Member. 
 
10. 
Inspector General of Police, Northern Areas, 
Gilgit, Member. 
 
11. 
Inspector General of Police, Pakistan Motorway 
Police, Member (Approved by COA in the meeting 
held on 26.6.2000. 
 
Functions of the Committee of Administration 
SMC No. 11/2011 
31
 
Clause II of the Constitution deals with the functions of 
Committee of Administration which read as under: 
a) 
To receive and administer funds for the foregoing, 
health, educational and charitable objects and to 
that end, take and hold, by request, device, gift, 
purchase or lease, either absolutely, or in trust, 
any property, real, personal or mixed, without 
limitation as to amount or value, except such 
limitation, if any, as may be imposed by laws to 
sell convey, dispose of any such property and to 
invest and reinvest the principal and income 
thereof, to deal with and expand the principal and 
income of the Foundation for any of the 
aforementioned object and as may be contained 
in the instruments under which property is 
received or the other limitation imposed by law; 
b) 
To receive any property, real, personal or mixed 
in trust under the terms of any will, deed of trust 
or other trust instrument for the foregoing objects 
or any of them (but for no other purpose) and in 
administering the same to carry out the directions 
and exercise the powers contained in the trust 
instrument under which the property is received 
including the expenditure of the principal as well 
as the income for or more objects, or such 
subjects as authorised or directed in the 
instrument under which it is received. 
c) 
To receive take title to hold and use the proceeds 
and income of stocks, bonds, obligations, or other 
securities of any government or Corporations, 
domestic, or foreign but only for the foregoing 
purposes of some of them; 
SMC No. 11/2011 
32
d) 
And generally to undertake, do and perform all 
such acts, matters or things as may be desirable 
or necessary in the opinion of the committee of 
Administration 
for 
the 
accomplishment 
of 
foregoing purposes or any of them and in 
particular but without prejudice to generally of 
the foregoing to enter into contracts, to undertake 
financial and commercial obligations to borrow or 
raise or secure the payment of money to sell 
exchange mortgage, let or lease the property and 
accounts of the Foundation, to purchase, take on 
lease or tenancy or in exchange, hire take over 
options, or otherwise require any estate interest 
or property and to hold develop, deal with turn to 
account any property assets, or rights, real or 
personal or any kind and in the directions of the 
Committee of Administration to, apply the assets 
of 
the 
Foundation 
in 
or 
towards 
the 
establishment of any association and institution 
the objects or purposes of which are in 
accordance with the objects of the Foundation.” 
 
20. 
 
From the narration of the aforesaid facts and the 
picture depicted from the documents, it is crystal clear that the 
National Police Foundation was established on 18.3.1975 under sub 
section (1) of Section 5 of the Charitable Endowment Act 1890 by 
the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare for the welfare of 
employees of Federal and Provincial Police Organizations and 
serving and retired employees of the said Police Organizations, 
thus it is charitable organization within the meaning of section 2 of 
SMC No. 11/2011 
33
the Charitable Endowment Act, 1980 for the benefits of the 
following: 
i) 
Who have served or are serving in the Police Force of 
the Province of Punjab, Sindh, N.W.F.P., Balochistan, 
National Police Academy, Pakistan Railway Police, 
Islamabad Police, Azad Jammu & Kashmir and 
Northern Area Police as Police officer. 
ii) 
Who have served or are serving in the Federal Police 
Organisation under the control of Director General 
Federal Security Force in the Ministry of Interior, 
States 
and 
Frontier 
regions 
(Interior 
Division), 
Islamabad. 
iii) 
Who 
have 
served 
or 
are 
serving 
the 
Federal 
Investigation Agency, under the control of I.G./S.P.E. 
Director General Federal Investigation Agency in the 
Ministry of Interior, States and Frontier Regions 
(Interior Division), Islamabad. 
iv) 
Who have served or are serving with executive police 
ranks on the Ministerial Cadre and other Ministerial 
staff of any other offices controlled by the Inspectors 
General of Provinces mentioned in (i) above, or under 
the 
Inspector 
General, 
Special 
Police 
Establishment/director General, Federal Investigation 
Agency. 
v) 
Who are or have been on deputation to any other 
departments from the police department wherein they 
have retained their permanent lien of service. 
vi) 
Dependents of persons indicated in clause (i) to (v). 
 
21. 
 
From the definition of charitable purpose as per section 
2 of Charitable Endowments Act, 1890 it is crystal clear that it is for 
SMC No. 11/2011 
34
the relief of the poor, education, medical relief and the 
advancement of any other object of general public utility but does 
not include a purpose which relates exclusively to religious 
teaching or worship.  In such circumstances, the benefit could be 
given only to those who are poor and entitled to have share from 
charity.  It is apparent from the constitution of the Foundation that 
the Foundation was established in March 1975 as a Trust for the 
benefit of all police forces in the country, the main object of which 
was to provide help in the shape of medical, education, one time 
grants, artificial limbs, scholarships, dowry, vocational training 
centres etc.  It is a self-financing agency and generates funds from 
its own projects such as industrial units, housing schemes, security 
services etc.  The very purpose of the establishment of the 
Foundation was to help poor objects of the police organizations.  
The purpose of Administration Committee or the Board of 
Directors and the Authority under the Endowment Act is to 
generate funds for the persons who come within the definition of 
beneficiaries under the aforesaid Act.  They could only generate 
funds for the welfare of the beneficiaries, while framing aims and 
objects of the NPF they have inserted all the provisions therein 
which could benefit to them and other such like officers of the 
police organization and not to the benefit of the actual 
beneficiaries. 
Even otherwise, the aims and objects of the Foundation 
should have been framed in accordance with the substantive law 
SMC No. 11/2011 
35
and framing of rules in conflict with or derogating from the 
substantive provisions of law or statute under which the Rules are 
framed are normally declared invalid due to certain reasons.  This 
Court on an earlier occasion while dealing with such like case in 
Suo Motu Case No.13 of 2009 (PLD 2011 SC 619) held as under:- 
“16. The first question, which requires to be determined 
by this Court in the instant case is whether it was 
permissible for the CDA, to have framed a Regulation, 
which was inconsistent with the parent statute, i.e. the 
Ordinance. It may be seen that subsection (1) of section 12 
of the Ordinance provides that the CDA may, pursuant to 
the master plan and the master programme, call upon 
any local body or agency operating in the Specified Areas 
to prepare, in consultation with it, a scheme or schemes 
in respect of matters ordinarily dealt with by such local 
body or agency, and thereupon the local body or agency 
shall be responsible for the preparation of the scheme or 
schemes, whereas, subsection (5) provides that no 
planning or development scheme shall be prepared by 
any person or by any local body or agency except with 
the concurrence of the Authority. Under subsection (2), 
the schemes may relate to land use, zoning and land 
reservation, public buildings, industry, etc. Subsection (3) 
empowers the Federal Government to add to, alter or 
amend the list of subjects (schemes). Under subsection 
(4), the expenditure on the preparation of such schemes is 
to be borne as agreed to between the CDA and the local 
body or agency while under subsection (5), no planning 
or development shall be prepared by any person or by 
any local body or agency except with the concurrence of 
the CDA. The term "agency", as defined in section 2(a) 
means any department or organization of the Federal or 
Provincial Government and includes a corporation, or 
other autonomous or semiautonomous body set up by the 
Federal or Provincial Government. The term "local body" 
SMC No. 11/2011 
36
as defined in clause (j) ibid means the local body, the local 
council or the municipal body as defined in clauses (23) 
(24) and (27) of Article 3 of Basic Democracies Order, 
1959 (P.O. 18 of 1959), or the Cantonment Board, having 
jurisdiction in the area concerned, and includes an 
Improvement Trust within such area. 
  
17. The word 'regulation' as defined in Advanced Law 
Lexicon referred to by the learned Amicus Curiae means 
a rule or order prescribed by superior for the 
management of some business or for the government or a 
company or society. It is a rule, Ordinance or law by 
which conduct etc., is regulated. It implies a rule for a 
general course of action, but does not apply to a case in 
which specific instructions are to be given applicable to 
that case alone. According to Black's Law Dictionary, the 
term 'regulation' means a rule or order having legal force 
issued by an administrative agency or a local 
government. In Khawaja Ahmad Hassan (supra), it was 
held as under: - 
  
"25. It must be kept in view that "when the legislature 
confers power on Government to frame rules it is 
expected that such powers will be used only bona fide, 
in a responsible spirit and in the true interest of the 
public and in furtherance of the object for the 
attainment of which such powers, were conferred". 
(Land Realization Co. Ltd. v. Postmaster-General 
(1950) 66 TLR (Pt. 1) 985, 991, per Romer, J. (1950) Ch. 
435. It is to be noted that rule-making authority which 
falls within the ambit of subordinate legislation as 
conferred upon the Government by virtue of section 191 
of the Ordinance is neither unlimited nor unbridled and 
the limitations as mentioned in section 191 of the 
Ordinance must be adhered to in letter and spirit. 
  
29. It is a well-recognized principle of interpretation of 
statutes that if the rules framed under the statute are in 
excess of the provisions of the statute or are in 
contravention of or inconsistent with such provisions 
then those provisions must be regarded as ultra vires 
of the statute and cannot be given effect to. (Barisal 
Cooperative Central Bank v. Benoy Bhusan AIR 1934 
Cal.537; Municipal Corporation v. Saw Willie, AIR 
1942 Rang 70, 74)". 
  
30. In the case of statutory rules the Court can always 
SMC No. 11/2011 
37
examine the question as to whether the same are 
inconsistent with the statute under which they are 
made. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid 
down in Hazrat Syed Shah Mustarshid Ali Al-Quadari 
v. Commissioner of Wakfs AIR 1954 Cal. 436. 
  
31. A rule-making body cannot frame rules in conflict 
with or derogating from the substantive provisions of 
the law or statute, under which the rules are framed. 
No doubt that the rules-making authority has been 
conferred upon the Government but "a rule, which the 
rule-making authority has power to make will 
normally be declared invalid only on the following, 
grounds: 
  
(1) 
Bad faith, that is to say, that powers 
entrusted for one purpose are deliberately 
used with the design of achieving another, 
itself unauthorized or actually forbidden; 
  
(2) 
that it shows on its face a misconstruction of 
the enabling Act or a failure to comply with 
the conditions prescribed under the Act for 
the exercise of the powers; and 
  
(3) 
that it is not capable of being related to any 
of the purposes mentioned in the Act. 
(Shankar. Lal Laxmi Narayan Rathi v. 
Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1979 
MPLJ 15 (DB). 
  
Rules cannot go beyond the scope of the Act M.P. 
Kumaraswami Raja AIR 1955 Mad. 326 nor can they, 
by 
themselves, enlarge 
the 
scope 
of 
statutory 
provisions. K. Mathuvadivelu v. RT Officer, AIR 1956 
Mad. 143. They cannot also militate against the 
provision under which they were made. (Kashi Prasad 
Saksena ro. State of U. P. AIR 1967 All. 173. 
  
32. There is no cavil with the proposition that "the 
power of rule making is an incidental power "that must 
follow and not run parallel to the present Act. These 
are meant to deal with details and can neither be a 
substitute for the fundamentals of the Act nor can add 
to them. PLD 1975 Azad J&K 81. There are two main 
checks in this country on the power of the Legislature 
to delegate, these being its good sense and the principle 
that it should not cross the line beyond which 
delegation amounts to abdication and self-effacement. 
The only requirement of law in such situations is to 
insist that the subordinate body charged with the duty 
of making rules must strictly confine itself within the 
sphere of its authority for the exercise of its 
subordinate legislative power and in each case it is the 
duty of the Courts in appropriate proceedings to be 
satisfied that the rules and regulations so made are:-- 
  
SMC No. 11/2011 
38
 
(a) by the authority mentioned in the Act, and 
  
 
(b) that they are within the scope of the power 
delegated therein. (PLD 1966 Lah. 287). 
  
"36. It is a well-recognized principle of interpretation of 
statutes that if the rules framed under the statutes, or 
bye-laws framed under the rules, are in excess of the 
provisions of the statute or are in contravention of or 
inconsistent with such provisions then these provisions 
must be regarded as ultra vires of the statute and 
cannot be given effect to. (Barisal Cooperative Central 
Bank v. Benoy Bhusan, AIR 1934 Ca1.537, 540)." 
  
In Nur Ahmad's case (supra), it was held that reading 
the rule in the above manner would be tantamount to 
enlarging its scope by depriving the aggrieved party of 
the right of being heard which he has. The Basic 
Democracies Order does not deprive him of that right. 
The rule-making Authority therefore, cannot clothe itself 
with power which the Statute itself does not give. In 
Mian Ziauddin's case (supra), it was held that the rules 
framed under the Ordinance could not go beyond and 
over-reach the Ordinance itself. In Ummatullah's case 
(supra), it was held that Strong presumption as to 
constitutionality, 
legislative 
competence, 
legality, 
reasonableness and intra vires attached to a statute is 
also attached with full force to subordinate legislative 
instruments 
as 
well, 
such 
presumption 
though 
refutable, onerous burden is cast on person challenging 
validity or vires of legislative instrument, on any count. 
In order to strike down a subordinate legislative 
instrument, challenger has to show that any of the 
disqualification exist namely (a) it impinges upon 
fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution 
(b) it is in conflict with any Constitutional provision (c) 
it is beyond the legislative competence of the delegatee 
making it and or (d) it is violative or beyond the scope of 
the parent or enabling statute. (see KBCA v. Hashwani 
Sales and Services Ltd. PLD 1993 SC 210 @ 228 C, 
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Education and 
Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh 
Bhupesh Kurmarsheth AIR 1984 SC 1543. It was further 
held that when the parent law i.e. Sindh Buildings 
Control Ordinance, 1979 does not provide for matter 
relating to change in land use classification, or 
conversion of one category of land into another it 
cannot through delegated legislative instrument confer, 
bestow or delegate any power and duties on "Concerned 
Authorities", which powers and performance of duty are 
not within its own domain or scope of authority. It is 
settled principle of law that what cannot be done 
directly cannot be done or allowed to be done indirectly. 
It is also trite principle of law; what is not possessed can 
neither 
be 
conferred 
nor 
delegated. 
In 
Kerala 
Samsthana Chethu's case (supra), it was held that the 
power of the Government was to make rules only for the 
SMC No. 11/2011 
39
purpose of carrying out the purposes of the Act and not 
dehors the same. In other words, rules cannot be framed 
in matters that are not contemplated under the Act. 
Reference in the above case was made to Bombay 
Dyeing and Mfg. C. Ltd. v. Bombay Environmental 
Action Group 2006 (3) SCALE 1, wherein it was held 
that a policy decision, as is well known, should not be 
lightly interfered with but it is difficult to accept the 
submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel 
appearing on behalf of the Appellants that the courts 
cannot exercise their power of judicial review at all. By 
reason of any legislation whether enacted by the 
legislature or by way of subordinate legislation, the 
State gives effect to its legislative policy. Such 
legislation, however, must not be ultra vires the 
Constitution. A subordinate legislation apart from being 
intra vires the Constitution should not also be ultra vires 
the parent Act under which it has been made. A 
subordinate legislation, it is trite, must be reasonable 
and in consonance with the legislative policy as also 
give effect to the purport and object of the Act and in 
good faith. In the case of Vikramaditya Pandey v. 
Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow [(2001) 2 SCC 423] the 
Indian Supreme Court has held that the provisions of the 
regulations 
in 
question 
to 
the 
extent 
of 
their 
inconsistency with any of the provisions of the. 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, U.P. Dookan Aur Vanijya 
Adhishthan Adhiniyam, 1962, Workmen Compensation 
Act, 1923 and any other Labour Laws for the time being 
in force, if applicable to any cooperative society or class 
of cooperative societies shall be deemed to be 
inoperative. By plain reading of the said Regulation it is 
clear that in case of inconsistency between the 
Regulations and the provisions of the Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947, the State Act, the Workmen 
Compensation Act, 1923 and any other labour laws for 
the time being in force, if applicable to any cooperative 
society or class of cooperative societies to that extent 
Regulations shall be deemed to be inoperative. In other 
words, the inconsistent provisions contained in the 
Regulations shall be inoperative, not the provisions of 
the other statutes mentioned in the Regulation. 
  
 
22. 
 
From an examination of the above case law it is clear 
that a rulemaking body cannot frame rules in conflict with, or in 
derogation of, the substantive provisions of the law or statute, 
under which the rules are framed. Rules cannot go beyond the 
scope of the Act. Thus, we are inclined to hold that no rule can be 
made which is inconsistent with the parent statute, whereas, no 
SMC No. 11/2011 
40
regulation can be framed which is inconsistent with the parent 
statute or the rules made thereunder and the provisions of these 
rules or regulations, as the case may be, to the extent of such 
inconsistency with the parent statute or the rules shall be void and 
inoperative.   
 
In the instant case the Committee of Administration of the 
National Police Foundation has framed rules according to their 
own choice irrespective of the scope of the Charitable Endowments 
Act under which the charitable institution was formed aiming at 
welfare and benefit of poor and needy officials of the Police 
Departments all over the country. 
23. 
 
So far as the question/issue, whether National Police 
Foundation is authorized to launch private housing schemes etc. 
for the general public, is concerned, according to item No. 1 & 2 of 
the agenda of the meeting of Board of Directors of the National 
Police Foundation held on 26.2.1989, the housing schemes at E/11 
and Loi Bher were launched by the Foundation on commercial 
basis.  Since the very object of the Foundation was to help 
beneficiaries of the foundation, therefore, as per aims and objects 
No. (v), the foundation in order to provide any facility or help 
which the committee of administration may decide from time to 
time comes under the broad terms of “Welfare” of the Beneficiaries.  
In such circumstances, National Police Foundation was authorized 
to launch housing schemes for the help of beneficiaries but not for 
private persons or officers/officials of other departments.  Since the 
SMC No. 11/2011 
41
National Police Foundation came into being under sub section (1) 
of Section 5 of the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890, thus, it was a 
charitable institution formed for the help of poor and needy 
officials of the Police Departments all over the country and one of 
the projects of the said Foundation was establishment of Housing 
Schemes for those who really need shelter of house.  As is evident 
from the Constitution of the National Police Foundation its aim 
and object was to help the poor servants of the Police Organizations 
all over the country and those who had lost their lives while being 
in service or on duty.  
24. 
 
For the above reasons the National Police Foundation, 
keeping in view its objects and for providing maximum benefits to 
the beneficiaries for whom this charitable organization was 
established, was authorized to launch a private housing scheme for 
the help and welfare of the beneficiaries but the plots could have 
been sold in the private market at higher rate for generating funds 
and could not be allotted to the higher police officers and their 
dependants under the garb of beneficiaries.  In such circumstances, 
it is held that National Police foundation has deviated from the 
basic purpose of charitable for which this Foundation was 
established.  Thus it is a clear cut case of mismanagement and the 
charitable organization has been used for loot-sale of plots to the 
higher influential police officers including the private and 
influential persons of other departments/organizations. 
 
SMC No. 11/2011 
42
25. 
 
Since all the remaining issues are related to the housing 
schemes and are interlinked, therefore, the same are being 
discussed/determined together.   
 
Housing Scheme of E-11, Islamabad and Lohi Bher 
26. 
 
The Board of Directors of the National Police 
Foundation in its meeting held on 26.2.1989 decided to set up two 
housing schemes in Rawalpindi and Islamabad areas to cater for 
the housing needs of the beneficiaries of the NPF and Government 
servants in Lohi Bher Area (0-9) and Sector E-11 Islamabad.  In 
Sector E-11, there were a number of villages including Dharmian, 
Bara Dari, Maira Bheri, Bhekar Akku and Golra etc.  The 
establishment of Housing Schemes at E/11 and Lohi Bher, 
Islamabad was discussed in the meeting of the Baord of Directors 
held on 26.2.1989 as agenda item No. 1 & 2 which reads as under:- 
“Item No. 1 & 2  
LAUNCHING OF HOUSING SCHEMES AT E/11 ISLAMABAD 
AND LOI BHER 
 
The Managing Director briefed the Board about the launching 
of the two Housing Schemes at E/11 and Loi Bhair on 
commercial basis, mentioning that the land in question was 
allotted to the affectees of Islamabad and has been procured 
from them privately.  About the Loi Bhair the Board was 
informed that the agreement has been made to purchase a 
piece of land comprising over an area of 1000 Kanals.  The 
Chairman was further informed that agreements in this 
connection had already been signed with the owners and an 
advance money of Rs.10 lacs has also been paid while a sum 
of Rs. 5 lacs have been advanced for the E11 scheme.  The 
Board was further briefed that these two schemes would yield 
a good profit of about 20/30 million rupees.  It was further 
SMC No. 11/2011 
43
explained that to organize these two schemes we would be 
requiring skeleton staff for which two/three persons would be 
employed.  Besides a Suzuki Jeep will also have to be 
purchased to visit the site etc. 
 
The proposal was approved by the Board.” 
 
27. 
 
The Board of Directors of the NPF in its meeting held 
on 26.02.1989 also passed a Resolution to set up two housing 
schemes in Rawalpindi/Islamabad area to cater for the housing 
needs of the beneficiaries of the NPF and Government Servants in 
Lohi Bher Area (O-9) and Sector E-11 Islamabad which reads as 
under: 
“RESOLUTION 
 Resolved by the Board of directors in its meeting held 
on 26/02/1989 to launch two Housing Schemes in 
Rawalpindi/Islamabad area at Loi Bhair and E/11. 
 It was further resolved that an area of 1000 kanals 
approximately at Loi Bhair Rawalpindi/Islamabad 
should be purchased to cater for the housing needs of 
the beneficiaries/government servants and general 
public. 
 The Board approved the agreements dated February 
7, 1989 and January 29, 1989 signed by the Managing 
director, National Police Foundation and the sellers. 
            Sd/-  
 
 
 
 
 
Sd/-  
(S. K. MAHMUD) 
 
        (HAFIZ S. D. JAMY) 
CHAIRMAN  
 
MANAGING DIRECTOR 
          Sd/-  
 
 
 
           Sd/-  
 (M. M. SAEED)    
 
         (SHAHID ABBAS) 
DIRECTOR INDUSTRIES            DIRECTOR 
FINANCE” 
 
Agreement between NPF and M/s. Land Linkers 
 
NPF signed three agreements for the purchase of land 
through Anjum Aqeel Khan, owner of an unregistered firm, 
namely, M/s. Land Linkers.  First agreement was made on 
3.11.1997 for the purchase of 200 to 300 kanals of land @ 
SMC No. 11/2011 
44
Rs.595,000/- per kanal.  Under this agreement 252 Kanals 6-1/2 
marlas land was provided by Anjum Aqeel Khan to the NPF. 
 
Second agreement was made on 28.8.2001 for the purchase 
of 318 kanals land @ Rs.8,25,000/- per kanal and 318 kanals 12 
marlas land was provided to NPF. 
 
Third agreement was made on 12.4.2003 for the purchase of 
58 kanals land @ Rs.825,000/- per kanals and 37 kanals 12 marlas 
land had been provided under this agreement to the NPF. 
28. 
 
General 
rules 
for 
membership 
and 
terms 
and 
conditions of allotment were also reduced into writing by the 
foundation in the following manner:- 
Membership 
 
 
1. 
Acceptance of membership is subject to the screening of 
the applications, which may accept or reject any 
application without assigning any reason. 
 
2. 
An applicant can apply for only one plot.   
 
3. 
In case the National Police Foundation due to any 
reason fails to allot a plot the applicant shall not claim 
any damages, compensation or interest, however the 
applicant will be entitled to the refund of the principal 
amount deposited with the NPF. 
 
4. 
If the number of applications received is more than the 
plots available, then the allotment shall be determined 
by ballot.  The Managing Director reserves the right to 
allot 10% of the plots at its discretion.   
 
5. 
Each applicant will pay in advance by means of crossed 
bank draft/pay order en-cashable at Islamabad drawn 
in favour of National Police Foundation Islamabad. 
Cash Payment / cheques shall not be acceptable.   
SMC No. 11/2011 
45
 
6. 
After an applicant’s membership is accepted, he will be 
intimated the total cost of the plot along with schedule 
of payment. 
 
7. 
All applications will be accepted subject to availability 
of land.   
 
Allotment 
1. 
Allotment will be made subject to the following terms 
and conditions:- 
a. 
In case of a corner plot you are required to pay 
10% extra price of the plot. 
b. 
All payments shall be made to NPF through a 
Bank Draft / Pay Order. 
c. 
Conservancy charges at the prescribed rate shall 
be paid by you to the NPF after the completion of 
development work.  
2. 
The possession of the plot will be handed over to you on 
the 
completion 
of 
development 
work 
and 
the 
construction 
will 
be 
allowed 
after 
taking 
over 
possession of the plot as per building bye-laws of the 
CDA / RDA. 
3. 
The location / size of the plot is tentative and may vary 
at the time of actual demarcation and handing-over the 
possession of plots.  The NPF reserves the rights to 
change the plot without any notice. 
4. 
Mutual transfer of plots will be permissible with the 
prior approval of the NPF on payment of transfer fees 
and all other dues etc. if any outstanding against the 
transferor.   
5. 
Transfer of plot will be permissible with the approval of 
NPF on production of legal documents as required by 
NPF.  The transfer fees shall be charged at the 
prescribed rate.   
SMC No. 11/2011 
46
6. 
Demarcation fee Rs. 500/- per plot will be charged 
from you at the time of handing over the possession of 
the plot for the first time and for every subsequent 
demarcation on your request a fee of Rs. 500/- will be 
charged. 
7. 
You shall submit the building plan prepared by an 
approved architect of the CDA / RDA for the approval 
of the CDA / RDA and the building on the plot shall 
have to be completed in accordance with the building 
and zoning regulations of the CDA / RDA. 
8. 
No allottee/transferee shall amalgamate or sub divide 
the plot without prior permission and sanction of the 
NPF/CDA/RDA. 
9. 
If at the time of demarcation the area of the plot is 
found excessive the allottee shall pay such price of 
excessive area as may determine by the NPF.  In case 
the size of plot is found lesser the NPF will refund the 
amount of the lesser area @ cost of land charged from 
the member.  
10. 
The extension in the construction period may be 
allowed by the NPF on payment of extension surcharge 
at the rate prescribed by the CDA/RDA. 
11. 
In case of breach of any of the above cited conditions 
and non-observance of the above noted formalities 
within due time as given in this letter or in the 
agreement to be executed by you, the allotment will be 
liable to cancellation after deducting of 5 to 10% of the 
price of the plot and the plot with any building or 
material found thereon shall re-vest in the NPF without 
any liabilities to pay compensation thereof.  Further 
that you will also be responsible for any loss that the 
NPF may sustain in the re-sale of the plot.  The decision 
of the NPF in this behalf shall be final. 
SMC No. 11/2011 
47
12. 
The allotment shall be cancelled if any instalment of the 
development charges is not paid within the stipulated 
or extended period.  
13. 
All the payments should be made in the name of NPF 
through Bank Draft / Pay Order.  No cash / cheque will 
be acceptable.   
14. 
Corner Plot charges should be paid along with 1st 
instalment.  
15. 
Any change in address may invariably be intimated to 
this office.   
 
TERMS AND CONDITIONS 
1. 
Acceptance of membership is subject to the screening of 
the applications, which may accept or reject my 
application without assigning any reason. 
2. 
An applicant can apply for only one plot. 
3. 
In case the National Police Foundation due to any 
reason fails to allot a plot the applicant shall not claim 
any damages, compensation or interest, however, the 
applicant will be entitled to the refund of the principal 
amount deposited with the NPF. 
4. 
If the number of applications received is more than the 
plots available, then the allotment shall be determined 
by ballot.  The Managing Committee reserves the right 
to allot 10% of the plots at its discretion.   
5. 
Each applicant will pay in advance by means of crossed 
bank draft / pay order cashable at Islamabad drawn in 
favour of National Police Foundation Islamabad.  Cash 
payment  / cheques shall not be acceptable.  
6. 
After an applicant’s membership is accepted, he will be 
intimated the total cost of the plot along with schedule 
of payment. 
SMC No. 11/2011 
48
7. 
All applications will be accepted subject to availability 
of land.   
 
29. 
 
During pendency of the instant proceedings, Mr. Zafar 
Ahmad Qureshi, Ex-MD of National Police Foundation inquired 
into the matter of allotment of plots in the aforesaid two residential 
schemes and found the following illegalities / irregularities 
therein:-  
(a) 
In Qilla No. 74 comprising 8 Kanals land, NPF 
authorities purchased 9 kanals 9 marlas land in three 
transactions against an entitlement of 4 kanals as per detail 
given below:- 
i. 
Agreement dated 4.6.1998 between Mr. Abdul Hameed 
(as owner) (first party) and Mr. Abdul Hannan AD/NPF 
(second party) for 4 kanal and @ Rs. 5,95,000.  Total 
amount of Rs. 23,79,000/- was paid against entitlement 
letter No. CDA/DL/1(2)(12)/84 dated 2-3-1986. 
 
ii. 
Agreement dated 4.4.1998 between Mr. Aamir Shahzad 
Khan s/o Khuda Dad Khan legal attorney (first party) 
and Mr. Abdul Hannan AD/NPF (second party) same 4 
kanals land @ Rs. 5,95,000/-.  (total amount of Rs. 
23,79,000/-) was purchased against same entitlement 
letter No. CDA/DL/1(2)(12)84 dated 2.3.1986. 
 
iii. 
Agreement dated 26.8.2000 between Mr. Aamir Shahzad 
Khan s/o Khuda Dad Khan legal attorney (first party) 
and Abdul Hannan AD/NPF (second party) 1 kanals 9 
marlas land @ Rs. 5,95,000/-.  (total amount of Rs. 
8,62,750/-) 
for 
the 
same 
entitlement 
letter 
No. 
CDA/DL.1(2)(12)84 dated 2.3.1986 of 4 kanals land was 
purchased.  
CDA vide its letter No. CDA/DLR/6(83)2001/658 dated 28.7.2001 
transferred only 4 kanals land to NPF.   
 
SMC No. 11/2011 
49
(b)i. Vide agreement dated 4.5.1998 between Mr. Abdul 
Qayyum s/o Muhammad Din (legal attorney) of Ali 
Haider s/o Nadir Khan as (first party) and Abdul 
Hannan AD/NPF (second party) 16 kanals land in Qilla 
No. 56,44,47 was purchased @ Rs. 5,95,000/- and total 
amount (Rs. 95,19,000/-) was paid.   
 
ii. 
Another 5 kanals land in the same Qilla No. was 
purchased under agreement dated 29.7.1999 from Mr. 
Muhammad Ashraf s/o Nadir Khan (first party) and 
Abdul Hannan AD/NPF (second party) total amount of 
Rs. 29,75,000/- was paid.   
 
iii. 
The same land was again purchased by giving 18 
developed plots to Sh. Arif Pervez who won the case form 
Supreme Court and was declared owner of 21 kanals 
land in Qilla No. mentioned above vide MOU dated 
28.10.2002 signed by Sh. Arif Pervez and Ch. Iftikhar 
Ahmed MD/NPF.  The amount paid to Abdul Qayyum 
and Muhammad Ashraf mentioned above was not 
recovered from M/S land linkers.   
 
(c)i. Under agreement dated 10.7.1998 between Mr. Aamir 
Shahzad Khan s/o Khuda Dad Khan (legal attorney) of 
Tariq Mehmood s/o Abdul Rehman, Mrs. Naran Begum 
d/o Abdul Rehman and Abdul Hannan AD/NPF (second 
party) 2 kanals 16 marla land out of Qilla No. 219, 220 
and 225 was purchased @ Rs. 5,95,000/- and an amount 
Rs. 16,65,000/- was paid against entitlement letter No. 
CDA/DL/1(2)(12)/84 dated 2-3-1986. 
 
ii. 
Again under agreement dated 19.6.1999 between Mr. 
Aamir Shahzad Khan s/o Khuda Dad Khan (legal 
attorney) of Tariq Mehmood s/o Abdul Rehman, Mrs. 
Naran Begum d/o Abdul Rehman (first party) and Abdul 
Hannan AD/NPF (second party) same land 2 kanals 16 
marlas land @ Rs. 5,95,000/- and sum of Rs. 16,65,000/- 
was paid against the same entitlement letter No. 
CDA/DL/1(2)(12)/84 dated 2.3.1986. 
SMC No. 11/2011 
50
CDA vide its letter CDA/DLR/6(83)/2001/544 dated 17.7.2001 
transferred only 1 kanals 11 marlas land in the name of NPF. 
 
(d)i. Under agreement dated 30.3.1998 between Mr. Aamir 
Shahzad Khan s/o Khuda Dad Khan (first party) and 
Abdul Hannan AD/NPF (second party) 2 kanals 10 
marlas 
land 
out 
of 
Qilla 
No. 
282, 
369 
to 
371,362,363,341,302 to 305 and 309 @ Rs. 5,95,000/- 
and total amount of Rs. 14,87,500/- was paid against 
entitlement 
letter 
No.CDA/DL/1(2)(12)/84 
dated 
2.3.1986. 
 
ii. 
Again under agreement dated 4.7.1998 between Mr. 
Aamir Shahzad Khan s/o Khuda Dan Khan (legal 
attorney) of Mrs. Aamir Jan as (first party) and Abdul 
Hannan AD/NPF (second party) same land 2 kanals 10 
marlas of same Qilla No. and vide same allotment letter 
No. CDA/DL/1(2)/12(84) dated 2.3.1986 was purchased 
@ Rs. 5,95,000/- per kanals and an amount Rs. 
14,87,500/- was paid.   
 
iii. 
For the third time under agreement dated 16.6.1999 
between Mr. Aamir Shahzad Khan s/o Khuda Dad Khan 
(legal attorney) of Mrs. Aamir Jan as (first party) and 
Abdul Hannan AD/NPF (second party) 2 kanals 10 
marlas land was purchased from same Qilla No. and the 
authority of the same letter No. CDA/DL/1(2)(12)/84 
dated 2.3.1986 @ Rs. 5,95,000/- and total amount Rs. 
14,87,500/- was paid. 
CDA vide its letter No. CDA/DLR/6(83)/2001/676 dated 21.7.2001 
transferred 2 kanals 8 marlas land in the name of NPF in above 
mentioned Qilla Nos.   
(e)i. Under agreement dated 30.3.1998 between Mr. Zafar 
Iqbal s/o Ghulam Farid as (first party) 6 kanals 5 marlas 
land consisting of Qilla No. 441/1 to 449/1 and 454/1 @ 
Rs. 5,95,000/- and a total amount Rs. 37,18,750/- was 
paid against entitlement letter No.CDL/DL/1(2)(12)/84 
dated 2.3.1986. 
 
SMC No. 11/2011 
51
ii. 
Again under agreement dated 19.6.1999 the same land 
was bought from Mr. Zafar s/o Ghulam Farid (legal 
attorney) of Mr. Allah Bux Khan s/o Feroze Khan as 
(first party) and Abdul Hannan AD/NPF (second party) 
for the same Qilla Nos. at the same rate and paying same 
amount Rs. 37,18,750/- against entitlement letter No. 
CDA/DL/1(2)(12)/84 dated 2.3.1986. 
CDA vide its letter No. CDA/DLR/6(83)2001/659 dated 21.7.2001 
transferred 5 kanals 3 marlas land from the said Qilla Nos. 
 
(f) 
Pursuance to purchase of land agreement dt 28.8.2001 & 
dt 12.4.2003 the following irregularities were committed in the 
transactions. 
CDA transferred 563 kanals 6-1/2 marlas land.  The rest of land 
was not provided due to irregularities and illegalities 
mentioned at serial No.1 above as per detail given below:- 
 
i) 
Land of Abdul Qayyum and 
Muhammad Ashraf cancelled 
21 ---- 00 
ii) 
Duplicated sale / purchase of land 
21 ----- 19 
iii) 
Excess share of land sold and not 
transferred by CDA 
2 ------ 05 
 
Total 
45 --- 04 
 
Advance payments to M/s  Land Linkers for purchase of land 
started on 4.11.1997 and continued 12.4.2003.  Adjustments of 
advance against the land purchased by M/s Land Linkers 
continued till 28.8.2006.  Another 1 kanals 13 marlas land was 
transferred to NPF in 2010, but possession has not been handed 
to NPF.  Abdul Hannan Addl. Director (R) the then AD executed 
all the transactions related to first agreement dated 3.11.1997.  
The management of the NPF did not bother for the shortage of 
45 kanals land and continued to make payments in advance to 
M/s Land Linkers till 12.4.2003.  Abdul Hannan played a key 
role in this regard as he signed all the agreements / power 
attorneys on behalf of NPF.  He never put up any note or 
reported the irregularities / illegalities i.e. duplicate purchase of 
land because he himself was party to it.  This shortage of land 
was first pointed out by Laeeq Ahmed Khan Director Housing, 
SMC No. 11/2011 
52
vide letter No. HD/28/NPF/E-11/2005/761 dated 28.3.2005, 
thereafter Anjum Aqeel Khan gave undertaking dated 
22.2.2006 to fulfill the short fall of land within 2 months but he 
failed to honour his commitment.   
 
(g) 
Anjum Aqeel Khan requested for affiliation of 75 kanal 
land vide letter dated 16.5.2002 to the MD/NPF, which was 
accepted by NPF.  In pursuance to this acceptance, he provided 
2 lists of his 149 + 29 nomineesfor allotment of plots of different 
sizes on his affiliated land.  He had given undertaking that these 
allotment would be subject to proper transfer / possession of the 
said land in favour of NPF.  But contrary to the undertaking 
this condition was not kept in view or incorporated in the 
allotment letters.  The management of NPF issued 91 + 29 = 120 
allotment letters to his nominees and thus allotted 120 
developed plots comprising land measuring 41 kanals.  21 plots 
were allotted in the colony area i.e. sector E-11 of NPF and 99 
allotment letters were issued on the proposed affiliated land 
adjacent to the scheme.  In response to this request Anjum Aqeel 
Khan transferred 71 kanals land to NPF from 27.8.2003 to 
10.6.2004. 
 
(h) 
On 25.8.2003 Anjum Aqeel Khan requested for affiliation 
of 60 kanals land and given undertaking that he will pay 
development charges as well.  He did not provide land 
documents like fard, aks shajra not even mentioning Qilla No. 
or Khasra No. for proposed land offered for affiliation.  He did 
not given any undertaking for provision of land nor made any 
specific agreement with NPF.  The NPF officials Laeeq Ahmed 
Khan Director Housing, Abdul Hannan, Addl. Director 
Housing, Khuda Bukhsh Dy. Director Housing, Rafat Mustafa, 
Dy Director (Budget & Accounts) recommended to accept this 
request if Anjum Aqeel Khan is asked to get the land transferred 
to NPF.  Iftikhar Ahmed Khan MD/NPF approved this 
recommendation.  Anjum Aqeel Khan submitted a list of 61 
nominees indicating the plot numbers.  NPF allotted 61 
developed plots comprising 33 kanals land.  Out of this list 32 
developed plots (comprising 20 kanals land) were allotted on 
colony land and 28 developed plots (comprising 13 kanals land) 
SMC No. 11/2011 
53
were allotted on proposed affiliated land on 10.9.2003.  In 
pursuance of this request he did not provide any land although 
reminded again and again every time he reiterated his 
commitment.   
 
(i) 
On 29.4.2004 Anjum Aqeel Khan requested for affiliation 
of 50 kanals land and gave undertaking that he will pay 
development charges.  He did not provide land documents like 
fard, aks shajra not even mentioning Qilla No. or Khasra No. 
for the proposed land offered for affiliation.  He did not give 
any undertaking for provision of land nor made any specific 
agreement with NPF. NPF officials Khuda Bakhsh and Abdul 
Hannan recommended the proposal and MD  Ch. Iftikhar 
Ahmed Khan approved it on 11.5.2004.  He submitted a list of 91 
typed and 4 hand written (95) nominees.  The allotment letters 
(by Ch. Iftikhar Ahmed Khan MD/NPF) were issued on 
14.5.2004 to 95 nominees of Anjum Aqeel Khan.  NPF allotted 
95 developed plots comprising 73 kanals land out of which 57 
developed plots comprising about 39 kanals land allotted in 
colony area and 38 plots comprising about 34 kanals land on 
proposed affiliated land.   
 
(j) 
On 9.9.2004 Anjum Aqeel Khan surrender 25 allotment 
letters of plots issued on 14.5.2004 with the request that 5 plots 
should be adjusted at another place.  He surrendered 20 
allotment letters (issued on 14.5.2004) and requested that this 
area should be declared Flat Area.  Mr. Khuda Bakhsh 
recommended the proposal and Abdul Hannan Addl. Director 
observed “since there is no financial involvement on part of 
NPF, hence the request may please be approved”.  Mr. Sikandar 
Shaheen (Secretary) instead of Director Housing signed and 
marked the file without any remarks and sent to MD.  It was 
approved by the MD on 6.10.2004.  In pursuance of approval 
24367 Sq.Yds (48 kanals) land was allotted to Anjum Aqeel 
Khan on 14.10.2004 as commercial area.  It is pertinent to 
mention to that Anjum Aqeel Khan had not requested for 
allotment of 48 kanals land and this land was allotted to Anjum 
Aqeel Khan in lieu of proposed affiliated land of 50 kanals 
(request dated 29.4.2004).  By now NPF allotted 48 kanals 
SMC No. 11/2011 
54
developed plots and 48 kanals commercial area a total of 96 
kanals land against of fake request of 50 kanals affiliation.  Mr. 
Abdul Hannan is on record to have given a certificate to the 
effect that Anjum Aqeel Khan has paid the development charges 
so possession should be handed over to him.  Whereas Anjum 
Aqeel Khan had not paid any development charges for the 
commercial area till date.  It was a fraudulent transaction 
planned and executed by Anjum Aqeel Khan, Khuda Bakhsh and 
Abdul Hannan.  MD was probably misled by the strong 
recommendation of Deputy Director and Addl. Director but it 
does not absolve him from the responsibility being the final 
authority.  As per record all the allotment letters issued to the 
nominees of Anjum Aqeel Khan were signed by Iftikhar Ahmed 
Khan Managing Director/NPF and Laeeq Ahmed Khan Director 
Housing/NPF. 
 
 
The Inquiry Officer Mr. Zafar Ahmad Qureshi, has further stated in 
his report that following general irregularities have been 
committed in the purchase and affiliation of the land in question.  
These acts on the part of alleged persons are without any legal 
justification:- 
i. 
Duplicate / triplicate transactions of sale / purchase were made 
regarding the land provided to NPF by Anjum Aqeel Khan. 
 
ii. 
All payments were made by NPF to Anjum Aqeel Khan in 
advance and unlimited time was given for provision of land 
without any plausible justification. 
 
iii. 
The plots on developed colony land were allotted to the 
nominees of Anjum Aqeel Khan without getting corresponding 
land transferred in the name of NPF. 
 
iv. 
All the transaction of affiliation and allotment of land were 
without any formal agreement or undertaking to provide the land 
to NPF. 
SMC No. 11/2011 
55
 
v. 
The requests of Anjum Aqeel Khan were, for the allotment of 
plots to his nominees on proposed affiliated land, but plots were 
allotted on colony land also without any plausible reason. 
 
vi. 
No formal request of Anjum Aqeel Khan is available on record 
for allotment of plots to his nominees on NPF colony land. 
 
vii. 
Allotment of 95 plots comprising 73 kanals land against a fake 
request of affiliation of 50 kanals land.   
 
viii. 
Allotment of 48 kanals commercial land against surrender of 20 
allotment letter of 20 kanals land. 
 
ix. 
Commercialization of a residential piece of land measuring 48 
kanals without consideration.   
 
x. 
Iftikhar Ahmed Khan MD/NPF and Laeeq Ahmed Khan 
DH/NPF issued irrevocable allotment letters to the nominees of 
Anjum Aqeel Khan.  The allotment letters should have been 
subject to the provision of land by Anjum Aqeel Khan.  So in case 
of non-fulfillment of his commitment, NPF should have been in a 
position to cancel these allotment letters.   
 
Assessment of the outstanding liabilities of Anjum Aqeel 
Khan 
  
Sr. 
No. 
Description 
If 
Crystal 
Court 
Surrendered 
If 
Crystal 
Court 
not 
Surrendered 
1. 
Land allotted by NPF (developed 
plots) To the nominees of Anjum 
Aqeel Khan 
170-K 
170-K 
2. 
Crystal Court (Commercial land) 
48-K 
00-K 
3. 
Net 
land 
allotted 
by 
NPF 
developed plots (In colony area & 
proposed affiliated land) 
122-k 
170-k 
4. 
Add: Wastage calculated as per 
CDA Rules 
104-K 
145-K 
5. 
Total shortage of affiliated land 
54:46 
226-K 
315-K 
6. 
Add: Shortage of land in purchase 45-K 
45-K 
SMC No. 11/2011 
56
7. 
Less: affiliated land transferred to 
NPF by land linkers 
71-K 
71-K 
8. 
Net outstanding shortage of land 
200-K 
289-K 
 
30. 
 
During the course of inquiry, Anjum Aqeel Khan was 
confronted with the record of procurement of land by the inquiry 
officer as well as the allegations against him.  Said Anjum Aqeel 
Khan after admission of the allegations of procurement of land 
executed an agreement in favour of NPF which reads as under:- 
“In order to resolve my dispute with the NPF 
regarding the supply of land for the NPF Scheme in 
Sector E-11, Islamabad, I solemnly undertake to abide 
by the following terms and conditions: 
1. I was allotted a piece of land by NPF vide letter No. 
HD/28/NPF/2004/4517 dated 14.10.2004 in NPF 
Housing Scheme E-11, Islamabad.  This piece of land 
is named as Crystal Courts.  Out of the land 
mentioned in this letter, NPF had the ownership of 
only 22 kanals. 
2. I voluntarily settle and surrender this property 
measuring 22 kanals of Crystal Courts in favour of 
NPF and handover the possession with immediate 
effect.  Henceforth, I or any of my legal heirs will not 
have any sort of claim over this property and any 
claim over this property will not be agitated by me or 
any of my legal heirs at any forum in future.   
3. I will immediately withdraw and Stay order / the 
Court case filed by me against NPF concerning this 
property in Civil Court at Islamabad. 
4. In today’s meeting with NPF, it has been found that 
land measuring 126 kanals 14 marlas is due against 
SMC No. 11/2011 
57
me in this scheme.  At present, I am not in a position 
to provide this land to NPF.  I undertake to pay the 
price of this land to NPF.  I undertake to pay the price 
of this land to NPF @ rates prevailing in the vicinity 
in the year 2004 within 01 year up prevalent rate of 
land.   
5. This rate would be determined by a committee 
constituted by the Ex-officio Chairman of NPF 
(Secretary Interior). 
6. Previously, NPF has cancelled the allotment letters of 
my 14 nominees.  These plots have been subsequently 
re-allotted to police beneficiaries / fresh allottees and 
restore all the previous allotments.   
7. NPF would compensate the rest of the affecttees who 
had got the allotment letters of residential plots and 
could not get plots due to non-availability of land.  I 
would not have any ability of the affecttees.   
8. This settlement would be treated as full and final 
settlement between me and NPF regarding the supply 
of land to NPF for NPF Housing Scheme in Sector E-
11, Islamabad. 
 
The Inquiry Officer Mr. Zafar Ahmad Qureshi also recorded the 
statements of Iftikhar Ahmed Khan, ex-MD, Laeeq Ahmed Khan, 
ex-Director Housing, Abdul Hannan, ex-Addl. Director Housing, 
Khuda Bukhsh, ex-Deputy Director Housing and Anjum Aqeel 
Khan.  All the officers / officials of NPF had stated before the 
Inquiry Officer that they had rendered their services honestly and 
had left no stone unturned to make this scheme a reality.  They had 
further stated that they had never obtained any personal gain at 
SMC No. 11/2011 
58
any stage.  Laeeq Ahmed Khan had pointed out that during his 
incumbency as Director Housing, he had written a letter to Anjum 
Aqeel Khan in which he pointed out the short fall of land and asked 
Anjum Aqeel Khan to provide the additional land to bridge this 
shortfall.   
 
31. 
 
On 27.5.2011, an undertaking on a stamp paper of Rs. 
500 has been executed by Anjum Aqeel Khan in favour of NPF.  
This undertaking/settlement agreement is reproduced below: 
“In order to resolve my dispute with the National 
Police Foundation (NPF) regarding the purchase, 
affiliation and possession of land for the National 
Police Foundation Scheme in Sector E-11, Islamabad.  
I, Anjum Aqeel Khan son of Khuda Dad Khan r/o Golra 
Sharif, Islamabad, solemnly undertake to abide by the 
following terms and conditions: 
(i) 
I was allotted a piece of land by NPF vide letter 
No. HD/28/NPF2004.4517 dated 14.10.2004 in 
NPF Housing Scheme, E-11, Islamabad.  This piece 
of land measuring 24,367 Sq. yds. Is named as 
Crystal Courts.  Out of the land mentioned in this 
letter, through negotiation and settlement first 
time it came on record that 23 kanals land (11,949 
sq. Yds.) is belong to NPF. 
(ii) 
I voluntarily settle and surrender this property 
measuring approximately 23 kanals (11,949 sq. 
yds) of Qilla Nos. 229 (7 kanals 3 marlas), Qilla 
No. 230/1 (1 kanal 18 marlas) and Khasra No. 75 
& 76 (13 kanals 9 marlas) in favour of NPF and 
handover the possession with immediate effect.  
SMC No. 11/2011 
59
Henceforth, I, or any of my legal heirs will not 
have any sort of claim over this property and any 
claim over this property will not be agitated by 
me or any of my legal heirs at any forum in 
future.  
(iii) That I, Mr. Anjum Aqeel Khan son of Khuda Dad 
Khan is solemnly responsible for remaining land 
measuring 25 kanals (12,418 sq.yds) of Crystal 
Courts.  National Police Foundation has no 
liability whatsoever for any legal / illegal 
transaction after or before handing over the 
possession of approximately 23 kanals (11,949 sq. 
yds) land to NPF from Crystal Courts as per Qilla 
and Khasra numbers mentioned above in Para 
(ii), which is already in the name of NPF as per 
CDA revenue record. 
 
(iv) I will immediately withdraw the Stay order / the 
court case filed by me against NPF concerning 
this property in Civil Court at Islamabad. 
(v) 
In today’s meeting with NPF, it has been found 
that land measuring 126 kanals 14 marlas is due 
against me in this scheme.  At present, I am not in 
a position to provide this land to NPF @ rates 
prevailing in the vicinity in the year 2004 within 
01 (one) year. 
(vi) This rate would be determined by the Chairman of 
NPF (Secretary Interior) in consultation with the 
Members of the Committee of Administration. 
(vii) Previously, NPF had cancelled the allotment 
letters dated 5.11.2010 of my nominees of any 
other.  These plots have been subsequently re-
SMC No. 11/2011 
60
allotted to police beneficiaries, would be restored 
immediately.   
(viii) I, voluntarily assure with the cooperation / 
assistance of Mr. Tahir Ahmad, Mr. Masroor 
Sarwar Khan and Mr. Tahir Mahmood Khan to 
solve the financial burden of 59 affectees by 
affiliation of 22 kanals land to accommodate 59 
affectees. 
(ix) This settlement would be treated as full and final 
settlement between me and NPF regarding the 
purchase, affiliation and possession of land to 
NPF for NPF Housing Scheme in Sector E-11, 
Islamabad.” 
 
32. 
 
On 26.5.2011, another agreement for the affiliation of 
land to settle the claims of 59 effecttees was signed after lapse of 
eleven years.  In this agreement first party is Deputy Director 
Housing, NPF whereas second party are the three nominees of 
Anjum Aqeel Khan namely Mr. Nisar Ahmed son of (late) Dilbar 
Khan, Mr. Tahir Mehmood Khan son of (late) Muhammad Afzal 
Khan and Mr. Masroor Sarwar Khan s/o Rana Muhammad Sarwar 
Khan.  All the signatories / parties acknowledge as follows: 
1. Land measuring 11 kanals 13 marlas (7,048 square yards) 
land was transferred to NPF on 18.8.2010 in Sector E-11 
Islamabad, out of which 10 kanals land was transferred by 
Mr. Nisar Ahmed and 1 kanals 13 marlas land by Mr. Anjum 
Aqeel Khan. 
 
2. The second part undertakes to transfer additional land of 
about 9 kanals including 2 residential plots making total of 
SMC No. 11/2011 
61
about 22 kanals.  This whole land shall be affiliated by NPF 
and converted into Commercial area. 
 
3. According to the submitted layout plan, a total plots of 21 are 
achieved as follows: 
 
a) Plot Size 40’X60’ : total number 17 
b) Plot Sized 60’X60’ : total number 02 
c) ODD Size plots : total number 02 
Terms and Conditions for Settlement 
 
1. Mr. Anjum Aqeel Khan has recommended Mr. Tahir 
Mehmood Khan son of (late) Muhammad Afzal Khan, to 
provide & transfer additional land to NPF for affiliation. 
 
2. Mr. Tahir Mehmood Khan is providing additional land 
measuring about 9 kanals (or so), including 2 residential 
plots (plot No. 786-A measuring 40’X70’ and Plot No. 822 
measuring 50’X90’) that Mr. Tahir Mehmood Khan would 
purchase from his own sources, adjacent to & adjoining the 
already transferred land of 11 kanals & 13 marlas in Sector E-
11 Islamabad.  Thus the total land would become about 22 
kanals or so.  This whole land will be affiliated by NPF and 
converted into Commercial area. 
 
3. Against the transfer of said 9 kanals additional land, Mr. 
Tahir Mehmood Khan and Mr. Masroor Sarwar Khan has 
reached an understanding that 5 plots each measuring 
40’X60’ including the front plot on the left side of the 
commercial area (plot Nos. C-1 to C-5 as per layout plan 
submitted for approval) will be allotted to Mr. Tahir 
Mehmood Khan or his nominee(s).  Remaining all plots shall 
be allotted to Mr. Masroor Sarwar Khan or his nominees, 
according to their desire, to accommodate 59 affectees and to 
pay off the owner / allottee of Plot No. 822.  
 
4. Mr. Tahir Mehmood Khan would provide additional land, as 
mentioned above, to NPF for affiliation within one month of 
signing of this settlement agreement of 59 affectees (7 kanals 
+ 2 residential plots). 
SMC No. 11/2011 
62
 
5. The total plots towards the affectees fund would be 10 each 
measuring 40’X60’ or equivalent affiliated commercial area.  
Mr. Masroor Sarwar Khan, in good faith & voluntarily, 
undertakes that he would pay-off or reach an understanding 
with all the 59 affectees, within 45 days of approval of layout 
plan or as soon as possible. 
 
6. A mechanism has been decided that after surrendering 
allotment of 6 affectees of NPF, NPF would transfer & 
handover possession of one commercial plot measuring 
40’X60’ (or equivalent affiliated commercial land) shall be 
allotted / transferred to Mr. Masroor Sarwar Khan against 
surrendering 6 allotments of affectees, totaling to 10 plots. 
 
7. Mr. Nisar Ahmed (plot Nos.` C-11 to C-16) and Mr. Masroor 
Sarwar ( any plot of NPF choice) shall be allotted “Irrevocable 
Allotment Certificates” immediately upon signing of this 
agreement, as per “provisional allotment” dated 5.1.2011.  
Additionally Mr. Tahir Mehmood Khan or his nominee(s) 
shall also be allotted “Irrevocable Allotment Certificates” for 
his share of plots numbering C-1 to C-5 immediately upon 
signing of this agreement. 
 
8. Mr. Nisar Ahmed is fully authorized to sell his allotted 6 
commercial plots each measuring 40’X60’, in accordance with 
provisional allotment dated 5.11.2011, in the market and these 
plots are free from any encumbrances or legal complications 
of any kind over these plots of NPF.   
 
9. Mr. Masroor Sarwar Khan is fully authorized to generate 
funds from its own sources or commit sales of NPF securitized 
allotted plots to any third party to generate finances to pay-
off affectees.  But, these plots will only be allotted to Mr. 
Masroor Sarwar Khan or his nominee only after paying off 
affectees according to this agreement.  
 
10. It is agreed that to generate better price of the sales of the 
plots, Mr. Masroor Sarwar Khan in collaboration with NPF 
or under management of NPF, can invite auction of sales of 
SMC No. 11/2011 
63
securitized plots using NPF platform, sales proceeds of which 
shall remain securitized under NPF unless all affectees are 
paid off.  Such auction shall be organized by Mr. Masroor 
Sarwar Khan through his company MSK International as 
“Settlement Manager / Advisor.  Mr. Masroor Sarwar Khan, 
Mr. Nisar Ahmed and Mr. Tahir Mehmood Khan can also sell 
their respective allotted plots through same auction. 
 
 
11. The development of the commercial area shall commence 
within 7 days or approval of layout plan and transfer & 
possession of additional land by Mr. Tahir Mehmood Khan.  
The complete development charges shall distributed upon all 
allotted plots, proportionately, of Mr. Masroor Sarwar, Mr. 
Nisar Ahmed and 10 plots of affectees fund. No. Development 
charges shall be claimed from Mr. Tahir Mehmood Khan. 
 
12. After signing of this agreement, 23 allotment letters would be 
restored as mentioned in the undertaking agreement signed 
between Mr. Anjum Aqeel Khan and NPF on 22.2.2011. 
 
13. After the transfer of additional 9 kanals (7 kanals and 2 
residential plots) or so land, the total land transferred by Mr. 
Tahir Mehmood Khan would be about 11 kanals for the above 
affiliation. 
 
14. The total liability towards NPF would be 12 kanals (10 + 2 
kanals).  Therefore, this land should be exchanged by NPF to 
Mr. Tahir Mehmood Khan having Khasra Numbers 111, 113, 
114, 116, 127, 132, 136 (measuring 12 kanals) with the land of 
NPF that is not under possession of NPF’s Qilla Numbers 430 
& 434 (total 12 kanals),. 
 
33. 
 
Apart from the aforesaid illegalities committed by the 
office bearers of the National Police Foundation in connivance of 
Anjum Aqeel Khan of M/s. Land Linkers, the allotment of plots in 
both the aforesaid housing schemes was made in violation of the 
bye-laws / terms and conditions of the said schemes.  As already 
SMC No. 11/2011 
64
held the National Police Foundation was established only for the 
benefit of the poor and needy persons under sub section (1) of 
Section 4 of the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890, thus, all the 
property of the said foundation vest in the treasurer of the 
Charitable Endowments for Pakistan and was in trust of the 
Treasurer but the persons at the helm of affairs in the National 
Police Foundation allotted plots not only to those persons who 
were not at all entitled for allotment thereof but also allotted plots 
to every member of the family of those police officers who were at 
the helm of affairs in the said Foundation.  According to the 
meaning of the Charitable the benefit of the said schemes could 
have been granted only to the poor, martyred and needy serving or 
retired and dependents of such servants of the said Foundation or 
those who had sacrificed their lives for the country.   
34. 
 
In such circumstances we are of the view that the 
Committee of Administration of the Foundation has violated the 
purpose of establishment of this charitable institution under the 
garb of generation of funds and has committed gross illegalities, in 
order to favour the higher police officers and their families by 
allotment of plots even to private persons and other persons who 
were not entitled to the allotment of plots.  Instead of selling the 
plots in open market and for the purpose of generating funds for 
the National Police foundation to achieve the object of the 
establishment of the said organization for the help of the needy and 
the heirs of the martyrs.  
SMC No. 11/2011 
65
35. 
 
In the light of the objective of the Foundation, which 
has been elaborated in the foregoing paras, it is evident that the 
Foundation’s real purpose was to cater for the health, educational 
and charitable matters for the officials of the police department and 
their dependants.  However, in the garb of such objectives of the 
National Police Foundation the administration of the NPF decided 
to enrich their own pockets and to dole away the plots to the higher 
police officials and other higher government officials for a 
consideration which was not inconsonance with the market price 
prevailing at that time and the police officials and that other 
government officials have been allotted more than one plot.   
36. 
 
During proceedings on 22.3.2012 Mr. Humayun Raza 
Shafi, M.D. National Police Foundation has submitted a list under 
his signatures according to which more than one plot have been 
allotted to several police & government officials and in addition to 
them several plots have been allotted to other civilians.  Details of 
which are given below: 
 
 
Srl. 
No. 
Name & Designation 
Plot No. & 
Size 
Scheme 
Date of 
Allotment 
Cost of 
Land by 
NPF 
1. 
Mr. Abdul Qadir Haye, 
I.G. 
379(50x90) 
E-11 
6.4.2003 
1130000.00 
2. 
Mrs. 
Shaheen 
Qadir 
Haye, wife of Abdul 
Qadir Haye 
380(50x90) 
E-11 
9.3.2002 
1130000.00 
3. 
Mr. Abdur Razzaque, 
I.G 
480(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
1130100.00 
4. 
Mrs. Farhat Razzaque, 
w/o 
Mr. 
Abdur 
Razzaque 
52(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
565100.00 
SMC No. 11/2011 
66
5. 
Mr. Afzal Ali Shigri, I.G. 
558(50x90) 
E-11 
31.7.2002 
463933.00 
6. 
Mrs. 
Mahlaqa 
Shigri, 
w/o Afzal Ali Shigri 
557(50x90) 
E-11 
3.9.2001 
1130100.00 
7. 
Miss Amna Rizvi, d/o 
Afzal Ali Shigri 
556(50x90) 
E-11 
3.9.2001 
1130100.00 
8. 
Miss Mahlaiqa Shigri, 
w/o Afzal Ali Shigri 
1027-B 
(35x65) 
O-9 
4.11.2004 
250100.00 
9. 
Mis amna Shigri, d/o 
Afzal Ali Shigri 
1026-
B(35x65) 
O-9 
4.11.2004 
250100.00 
10. 
Mrs. Gulshan Iftikhar, 
w/o Iftikhar Rasheed, 
I.G. 
1011(50x90) 
E-11 
11.11.2002 
1575100.00 
11. 
Miss Sheze Iftikhar, d/o 
Iftikhar Rasheed, I.G. 
 
E-11 
10.5.2002 
1575100.00 
12. 
Mr. Kaleem Iman, I.G. 
661(50x90) 
E-11 
14.2.2002 
1690100.00 
13. 
Mrs. Ayusha Hanif w/o 
Kaleem Imam, I.G. 
1041(50x90
) 
E-11 
22.4.2003 
1690100.00 
14. 
Mr. 
Muhammad 
Rafique Haider, I.G. 
485(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1988 
1130100.00 
15. 
Mrs. Nabeela Rafique 
Haider 
486(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
1130100.00 
16. 
Rana Altaf Majeed, I.G. 
470(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
1200600.00 
17. 
Mrs. Salwa Rana 
469(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
1130100.00 
18. 
Saiyed Mohib Asad, I.G.  
643-
C(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
393433.00 
19. 
Mrs. Nigar Mohib, wife 
of Saiyed Mohib Asad, 
I.G. 
722(50x90) 
E-11 
22.8.2002 
1575100.00 
20. 
Syed Abid Abbas, DSP 
251(35x65) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
565100.00 
21. 
Mrs. Romana Abid, w/o 
Abid Abbas, DSP 
774(35x65) 
E-11 
11.11.2002 
787600.00 
22. 
Mrs. Romana Abid, w/o 
Abid Abbas, DSP 
430-
X(50x90) 
O-9 
15.4.2003 
500100.00 
23. 
Syed Abid Abbas, DSP 
82(12x20) 
O-9 
8.12.2001 
56100.00 
24. 
Mr. Haq Nawaz Kiani, 
SP 
807(35x65) 
E-11 
14.2.2002 
787600.00 
25. 
Mrs. 
Pakeeza 
Nawaz 
Kiani, w/o Haq Nawaz 
Kiani, SP 
674(50x90) 
E-11 
14.2.2002 
1575100.00 
26. 
Miss Hina Nawaz, d/o 
Haq Nawaz Kiani, SP 
540(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
1130100.00 
27. 
Mr. Behram Tariq, I.G. 
29(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
1130100.00 
28. 
Mrs. 
Farida 
Sultana, 
w/o Behram Tariq, I.G. 
29(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
1130100.00 
29. 
Ch. Muhammad Akmal, 
546(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
1130100.00 
SMC No. 11/2011 
67
Inspector 
30. 
Mrs. 
Farzana 
Akmal, 
w/o 
Ch. 
Muhammad 
Akmal, Inspector 
545(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
1130100.00 
31. 
Mr. Wajahat Latif, I.G. 
476(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
1200600.00 
32. 
Mr. 
Ahmad 
Latif, 
Banker, 
s/o 
Wajahat 
Latif 
477(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
1200600.00 
33. 
Mr. Mohammad Nawaz 
Malik, I.G. 
632-
F(50x90) 
E-11 
14.2.2002 
1575100.00 
34. 
Mrs. 
Surriya 
Nawaz, 
w/o Mohammad Nawaz 
Malik 
632-
G(50x90) 
E-11 
20.2.2002 
1575100.00 
35. 
Mr. Naseer Ali, Banker, 
s/o Muhammad Nawaz 
Malik                                          
2112-
A(50x90) 
O-9 
11.9.2003 
500100.00 
36. 
Mr. 
Arif 
Hussain, 
Accountant, 
s/o 
Muhammad 
Nawaz 
Malik 
2093-
T(50x90) 
O-9 
11.9.2003 
500100.00 
37. 
Mr. Manzoor Ahmad, 
I.G. 
669 
Sub-
1068(50x90
) 
E-11 
1.12.1999 
1200600.00 
38. 
Mrs. 
Qaisar 
Sultana, 
w/o Manzoor Ahmed 
670(50x90) 
E-11 
1.12.1999 
1130100.00 
39. 
Ch. Manzoor Ahmad, 
I.G. 
400-B 
(35x65) 
O-9 
7.10.2011 
251000.00 
40. 
Mr. 
Zaheed 
Waheed 
Butt, Brig. 
676(50x90) 
E-11  
29.3.2002 
1575100.00 
41. 
Mrs. Zille Huma Dar, 
w/o Zahid Waheed Butt, 
Brig. 
645(35x65) 
E-11 
29.3.2002 
105400.00 
42. 
Mr. Muhammad Afzal 
Rana, Lt. Col. 
708(50x90) 
E-11 
20.2.2002 
787600.00 
43. 
Miss. Sadia Afzal Rana, 
d/o Muhammad Afzal 
Rana 
1035(50x90
) 
E-11 
11.11.2002 
1500350.00 
44. 
Agha Baqir Ali , Foreign 
Service Officer 
871(50x90) 
O-9 
4.4.1991 
240100.00 
45. 
Agha Sibtain Raza s/o 
Agha Baqir Ali 
873(50x90) 
O-9 
4.4.1991 
240100.00 
46. 
Mr. Amjad Bashir, s/o 
Mr. Muhammad Bashir 
1845-
V(50x90) 
O-9 
26.2.2005 
958100.00 
47. 
Miam Imtiaz Bashir, s/o 
Mr. Muhammad Bashir 
1845-
H(50x90) 
O-9 
25.2.2005 
500100.00 
48. 
Mr. Shaukat Aziz, Ex-
Prime Minister 
411(50x90) 
E-11 
20.8.2002 
1105100.00 
49. 
Mr. Shaukat Aziz, Ex-
Prime Minister  
357(50x90) 
O-9 
7.10.1990 
245100.00 
SMC No. 11/2011 
68
50. 
Mrs. 
Rukhsana 
Aziz, 
w/o Shaukat Aziz, Ex-
P.M.  
358(50x90) 
O-9 
7.10.1990 
245100.00 
51. 
Mr. Israr Ahmed, I.G. 
594(50x90) 
O-9 
22.10.1990 
245100.00 
52. 
Mr. Israr Ahmed, I.G. 
286(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
1105100.00 
53.  
Mrs. Maimoona Israr, 
w/o Israr Ahmed 
593(50x90) 
O-9 
22.10.1990 
240100.00 
54. 
Mr. 
Sagheer 
Ahmed, 
PIA  
143(40x60) 
O-9 
10.1.2005 
1066880.00 
55. 
Mrs. Shaista Sagheer, 
wife of Sageer Ahmad 
76(12x20) 
O-9 
19.12.2002 
106780.00 
56. 
Malik 
Nazir 
Ahmad, 
Banker 
34(15x30) 
O-9 
28.12.1999 
104100.00 
57. 
Mrs. Nasim Akhtar Naz, 
w/o Malik Nazir Ahmad 
33(15x30) 
O-9 
28.12.1999 
104100.00 
58. 
Syeda Farzana Hussain, 
w/o 
Syed 
Shaukat 
Hussain 
130(15x30) 
O-9 
28.10.2002 
200100.00 
59. 
Syeda Naureen Batool, 
d/o 
Syed 
Shoukat 
Hussain 
122(15x30) 
O-9 
28.10.2002 
200100.00 
60. 
Mr. 
Sulran 
Azam 
Temori, IG 
718(50x90) 
E-11 
14.2.2002 
1665100.00 
61. 
Mr. 
Sultan 
Azam 
Temuri, DIG 
88(12x20) 
O-9 
14.12.2001 
56367.00 
62. 
Mrs. Rabia Temuri, w/o 
Sultan Azam Temuri 
160(15x30) 
O-9 
4.11.2003 
200100.00 
63. 
Mr. 
Siraj 
Din, 
Businessman, 
s/o 
Muhammad Din 
52(12x20) 
O-9 
18.7.2002 
53434.00 
64. 
Mr. 
Naik 
Bakht 
s/o 
Muhammad Din 
53(12x20) 
O-9 
18.7.2002 
43434.00 
65 
Mrs. 
Bilqees 
Akhtar, 
w/o Ghulam Ali 
121(15x30) 
O-9 
18.10.2002 
200100.00 
66. 
Miss Batool Akhtar, d/o 
Ghulam Ali 
113(15x30) 
O-9 
18.10.2002 
200100.00 
67. 
Mr. Ahsan-ulHaq s/0 
Abdul Aziz 
109(15x30) 
O-9 
19.12.2002 
200100.00 
68. 
Mr. Rizwan-ul-Haq s/o 
Abdul Aziz 
108(15x30) 
O-9 
19.12.2002 
200100.00 
69. 
Mr. 
Arif 
Qayum, 
Businessman 
148(15x30) 
O-9 
17.8.2011 
200100.00 
70. 
Mrs. Najma Arif, w/o 
Arif Qayyum 
147(15x30) 
O-9 
18.6.2003 
200100.00 
71. 
Mr. Humayoun Javaid, 
® Director FIA 
184(12x20) 
O-9 
22.2.2010 
1491000.00 
72. 
Mr. Humayoun Javaid, 
185(12x20) 
O-9 
22.2.2010 
1491000.00 
SMC No. 11/2011 
69
® Director FIA 
73. 
Mr. 
Fazal 
Mehmood 
Malik, Businessman 
187(12x20) 
O-9 
22.2.2010 
1521000.00 
74. 
Mr. 
Fazal 
Mehmood 
Malik, Businessman 
188(12x20) 
O-9 
22.2.2010 
1521000.00 
75. 
Mr. Zaheer Mahmood, 
Businessman, 
s/o 
Mahmood Khan 
2093-B 
(50x90) 
O-9 
8.3.2003 
100.00 
76. 
Mr. Mudasser Sheraz, 
s/0 Mehmood Khan 
2093-C 
(50x90) 
O-9 
8.3.2003 
100.00 
77. 
Mrs. Ghulam Sughra, 
w/o 
Mr. 
Muhammad 
Bashir Shakir, Captian 
119-K 
(50x90) 
O-9 
31.3.2003 
500100.00 
78. 
Mr. Jawad Bashir, s.o 
Muhammad 
Bashir 
Shakir 
119-L 
(50x90) 
O-9 
31.3.2003 
500100.00 
79. 
Mrs. Zahida Parveen, 
w/o Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad 
119-G 
(50x90) 
O-9 
1.4.2003 
500100.00 
80. 
Miss. Zehra Imtiaz, d/o 
Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad 
119-H 
(50x90) 
O-9 
1.4.2003 
500100.00 
81. 
Syed 
Muhammad 
Shahwaze Abbas Sherazi 
s/o Syed Safeer Hussain 
Shah Sherazi, DSP 
698-L 
(50x90) 
O-9 
25.2.2003 
100.00 
82. 
Syedia 
Saffia 
Kazmi, 
w/o 
Syed 
Safeer 
Hussain Shah Sherazi, 
DSP 
698-N 
(50x90) 
O-9 
25.2.2003 
100.00 
83. 
Syed Ibn-e-Ali Rizvi, s/o 
Syed Sardar ali Shah 
163-H 
(50x90) 
O-9 
1.3.2003 
450100.00 
84. 
Mrs. Narjis Batool Kazi, 
Doctor, w/o Syed Ibn-e-
Ali Rizvi 
163-G 
(50x90) 
O-9 
1.3.2003 
450100.00 
85. 
Mr. Jehangir Akhtar s/o 
Noor Mohammad 
400-M 
(50x90) 
O-9 
31.3.2003 
500100.00 
86. 
Mr. 
Tanveer 
Akhtar, 
Businessman, s/o Noor 
Muhammad  
400-N 
(50x90) 
O-9 
31.3.2003 
500100.00 
87. 
Mr. Babar Mumtaz, DSP 
450-K 
(50x90) 
O-9 
31.3.2003 
500100.00 
88. 
Mr. Amir Mumtaz s/o 
Sardar 
Mumtaz 
Ali 
Khan 
450-L 
(50x90) 
O-9 
31.3.2003 
500100.00 
89. 
Mr. Muhammad Farhan 
Ghauri s/o Muhammad 
Sharif Ijaz Ghauri 
99-D 
(50x90) 
O.-9 
27.1.2004 
337500.00 
90. 
Mr. Muhammad Faisal 
Ghauri, s/o Muhammad 
Sharif Ijaz Ghauri 
99-F 
(50x90) 
O-9 
27.1.2004 
337500.00 
91. 
Mr. Akhtar Mahmud, 
Businessman 
s/o Ch. 
2150 
O-9 
16.9.2002 
450100.00 
SMC No. 11/2011 
70
Khuda Dad Khan 
(50x90) 
92. 
Mrs. Naila Akhtar, W/o 
Akhtar Mahmud 
2151 
(50x90) 
O-9 
16.9.2002 
450100.00 
93. 
Mr. Muhammad Afzal 
Khan, S.J. (R.) 
2096 
(50x90) 
O-9 
4.9.2002 
450100.00 
94. 
Miss Atika Khan, d/o 
Muhammad Afzal Khan 
2093 
(50x90) 
O-9 
4.9.2002 
450100.00 
95. 
Mr. Mehmood Farooq 
Khan, 
NRSP, 
s/o 
Muhammad 
Akbar 
Khan 
2105 
(50x90) 
O-9 
15.6.2001 
450100.00 
96. 
Mr. 
Masood 
Akbar, 
NRSP, s/o Muhammad 
Akbar Khan 
2106 
O-9 
15.6.2001 
450100.00 
97. 
Mr. 
Abdul 
Sattar, 
Businessman s/o Abdul 
Ghafoor 
451-R 
(50x90) 
O-9 
1.4.2003 
100.00 
98. 
Mrs. 
Shafqat 
Sattar, 
W/o Abdul Sattar 
451-U 
O-9 
1.4.2003 
100.00 
99. 
Mr. Mohammad Ahsan 
Shahzad, 
s/o 
Abdul 
Sattar 
451-T 
(50x90) 
O-9 
1.4.2003 
100.00 
100. Mr. Arshad Munir, s/o 
Abdul Ghafoor 
451-S 
(50x90) 
O-9 
1.4.2003 
100.00 
101. 
Mr. 
Tayyab 
Aziz, 
Businessman, s/o Abdul 
Aziz 
451-P 
(50x90) 
O-9 
1.4.2003 
100.00 
102. 
Mrs. Rukhsana Tayyab 
w/o Tayyab Aziz 
451-N 
(50x90) 
O-9 
1.4.2003 
100.00 
103. 
Hafiz S.d. Jamy, IG (Ex-
MD NPF) 
446(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
1188920.00 
104. 
Mr. 
Hassan 
Naveed 
Jamy, 
Engineer, 
s/o 
Hafiz S.d. Jamy 
255(50x90) 
O-9 
10.10.1990 
240100.00 
105. 
Mr. Gul Najam Jamy, 
Govt. Service, s/o Hafiz 
S.d. Jamy 
813(50x90) 
O-9 
11.10.1990 
245100.00 
106. 
Mr. I.M. Mohsin, I.G. 
672(50x90) 
E-11 
14.2.2002 
1130100.00 
107. 
Mr. I.M. Mohsin, I.G. 
884(50x90) 
O-9 
19.2.1991 
245100.00 
108. Mr. Rajeel Mohsin, s/o 
I. M. Mohsin 
1021 
(50x90) 
E-11 
11.11.2002 
1575100.00 
109. 
Miss Nashita Mariyam, 
d/o I. M. Mohsin 
217-A 
(50x90) 
O-9 
17.11.1992 
280100.00 
110. 
Mr. Usman Amin Mian 
s/o Mian Muhammad 
Amin (I.G.) Ex-MD NPF 
457(50x90) 
E-11 
21.3.2000 
1200600.00 
111. 
Mr. Afnan Amin Mian, 
Engineer, 
s/o 
Mian 
Muhammad Amin (I.G.) 
606 
(50x90) 
E-11 
21.3.2000 
1130100.00 
SMC No. 11/2011 
71
Ex-MD NPF 
112. 
Dr. 
Sikandar 
Amin 
Mian, Doctor, s/o Mian 
Muhammad Amin (I.G.) 
Ex-MD NPF 
605(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
1130100.00 
113. 
Dr. 
Kamran 
Fazal, 
DD/FIA, son in law of 
Mian Muhammad Amin 
(I.G.) Ex-MD NPF 
541(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
1200600.00 
114. 
Dr. Naila Kamran, D/o 
Mian Muhammad Amin 
(I.G.) Ex-MD NPF 
542(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
1200600.00 
115. 
Mrs. 
Silva 
Nishat, 
Mother of son in law of 
Mian Muhammad Amin 
(I.G.) Ex-MD NPF 
479(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
1200600.00 
 
116. 
 
Mr. Laeeq Ahmad Khan 
DIG 
 
456 
(50 X 90) 
 
E-11 
 
30.3.2002 
 
541766.00 
117. 
Mr. Laeeq Ahmad Khan 
DIG 
289 
(50 X 90) 
E-11 
04.07.1998 
1132100.00 
118. 
Mrs. Hina Asher Khan 
d/o  Laeeq Ahmed Khan 
57 
(12 X 20) 
O-9  
22.11.2002 
106780.00 
119. 
Mr. Umar Alam Khan 
son of Laeeq Ahmed 
Khan, Marketing 
Manager NPF  
4 
12 X  20) 
O-9 
30.3.2002 
56100.00 
120. 
Mr.Mrs. Aisha Khanum  
wife of Umar Alam 
Khan 
5 
(12 X 20) 
O-9 
01.04.2001 
56100.00 
121. 
Mr. Sikandar Hayat 
Shaheen, DIG 
511 
(50 X 90) 
E-11 
28.03.2002 
580100.00 
122. 
Mrs. Riffat Shaheen wife 
of Sikandar Hayat 
Shaheen 
582 
50 X 90 
E-11 
04.07.1998 
1130100.00 
123. 
Miss Fatima Shaheen 
d/o Sikandar Hayat 
Shaheen 
1273  
(50 X 90) 
O-9 
17.06.2002 
450100.00 
124. 
Dr. Amina Shaheen 
(Lady Doctor) d/o 
Sikandar Hayat Shaheen 
 
400-B 
(50 X 90) 
O-9 
17.06.2002 
450100.00 
125. 
Mr.Muhammad Khawar 
Saeed Brother-in-Law of 
Sikandar Hayat Shaheen 
797 
(35 X 65) 
E-11 
27.12.2002 
775100.00 
126. 
Mr. Abdul Hannan  Ex-
Addl.Dir./NPF 
512 
(50 X 90) 
E-11 
30.03.2002 
516766.00 
127. 
Mr. Abdul Mateen 
Kamran, Businessman 
son of Abdul Hannan  
604   
(50 X 90) 
E-11 
04.12.2002 
1575100.00 
128. 
Mr. Faisal Hannan, 
Businessman son of 
Abdul Hannan 
1006  
(50 X 90)  
E-11 
11.11.2002 
1575100.00 
129. 
Mr.Abdul Mateen 
Kamran, Businessman 
son of Abdul Hannan 
137 
(50 X 70) 
O-9 
14.5.2003 
777877.00 
130. 
Mr. Faisal Hannan, 
Businessman son of 
Abdul Hannan 
136 
(50 X 70) 
O-9 
14.05.2003 
77877.00 
131. 
Mr. Umar Hannan son 
of Abdul Hannan 
135 
(50 X 70) 
O-9 
14.05.2003 
777877.00 
132. 
Miss Aisha Hannan D/o 
of Abdul Hannan   
147 
(50 X 70) 
O-9 
14.05.2003 
777877.00 
SMC No. 11/2011 
72
133. 
Mrs. Shahida Nasreen 
wife of Khuda Bukhsh 
138 
(50 X 70) 
(purchased) 
O-9 
13.05.2003 
777877.00 
134. 
Mrs. Soban Bi wife of 
Khuda Bukhsh 
142 
(40 X 60) 
 
O-9 
07.01.2005 
1066780.00 
135. 
Mrs. Shahida Nasreen 
wife of Khuda Bukhsh 
752 
(50 X 90) 
(purchased) 
O-9 
07.02.1991 
240100.00 
136. 
Mrs. Shahida Nasreen 
wife of Khuda Bukhsh 
 
1074 
 (35 X 65) 
O-9 
07.02.1991 
122600.00 
137. 
Mr. Khuda Bukhsh Ex-
DDH/NPF 
 
149 
(50 X 70) 
O-9 
13.05.2003 
777877.00 
138. 
Mrs. Shahida Nasreen 
wife of Khuda Bukhsh 
 
124 
(15 X 30) 
O-9 
13.01.2003 
200100.00 
139. 
Mr. Khuda Bakhsh Ex-
DDH/NPF 
 
513 
(50 X 90) 
E-11 
04.07.1998 
541766.00 
140. 
Mr. Khuda Bakhsh Ex-
DDH/NPF 
426 
(50 X 90) 
E-11 
04.07.1998 
1025575.00 
141. 
Mr. Asad-ur-Rehman 
son of Khuda Bukhsh 
409-A 
(50 X 90) 
E-11 
05.09.2003 
1575100.00 
142. 
Mr. Khuda Bakhsh Ex-
DDH/NPF 
212 
(35 X 65) 
E-11 
(Member
ship) 
04.07.1998 
565100.00 
143. 
Miss Nasira Naureen 
d/o Khuda Bukhsh 
644 
(50 & 90) 
E-11 
(purchas
ed) 
21.02.2003 
2871300.00 
144. 
Mr. Khuda Bakhsh, Ex-
DDH/NPF 
211 
(35 X 65) 
E-11 
Members
hip) 
04.07.1998 
565100.00 
145. 
Mr.Muhammad Zaman 
138 
(15 X 30) 
O-9 
27.05.2003 
200100.00 
146. 
Mr. Muhammad Zaman 
Ex-Site Engineer/NPF 
 
298  
(25 X 45) 
O-9 
02.08.2002 
112600.00 
147. 
Mr.Muhammad Zaman 
Ex-Site Engineer/NPF 
303 
(35 X 65) 
E-11 
04.07.1998 
600350.00 
148. 
Mrs. Nayyar Rafat wife 
of Syed Rafat Mustafa  
 
69 
(50 X 90) 
E-11 
04.07.1998 
1130100.00 
149. 
Syed Rafat Mustafa ex-
DD/B&A 
510 
(50 X 90) 
E-11 
28.03.2002 
 
 
516767.00 
150. 
Mrs. Bibi Hanifa wife of 
Mumtaz Ellahi 
100 
(35 X 65) 
E-11 
04.07.1998 
600350.00 
151. 
Mr. Mumtaz Ellahi ex-
PSO to MD/NPF 
632-B  
(50 X 90) 
E-11 
04.07.1998 
1130100.00 
152. 
Mr. Mumtaz Ellahi ex-
PSO to MD/NPF 
45 
(35 X 65) 
E-11 
04.07.1998 
565100.00 
153. 
Mr. Abdul Jamal Khan, 
DF/NPF  
514 
(50 X 90) 
E-11 
28.03.2002 
516766.00 
154. 
Mrs. Zarina Khan d/o 
Abdul Jamal Khan 
996 
(50 X 90) 
E-11 
11.11.2002 
1550100.00 
155. 
Mr.Muhammad Khan 
Asstt:/NPF 
206 
(35 X 65) 
E-11 
04.07.1998 
552600.00 
156. 
Mrs. Naseem Akhtar 
wife of Muhammad 
Khan 
357 
(35 X 65) 
E-11 
04.07.1998 
552600.00 
 
 
SMC No. 11/2011 
73
37. 
 
The above list clearly shows that the successive 
Managing Directors of the NPF have allotted the plots to the police 
officials not only over and above their entitlement but certain 
civilians of their choices as well as military officials have been 
allotted plots, who, even did not fall within the definition of the 
beneficiaries as discussed in the preceding paras.  Some of the 
allottees in the above list have been allotted plots only for a sum of 
Rs.100/- as shown at Srl. Nos. 75, 76, 81, 82, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 
and 102 of the list reproduced hereinabove.  
38. 
 
The Board of Directors of the Foundation while 
establishing housing schemes did not at all fix the criterion by 
making bye-laws / terms and conditions for allotment of plots in 
the  housing schemes and divided plots to their nears and dears 
without there being any logic for such allotments.  Even the Board 
of Directors did not frame any rules / bye-laws for allotment of 
plots to the general public and allotted plot to the persons of their 
choice without having published in the newspapers the policy or 
criteria regarding allotment of plots.  The plots in the said scheme 
were also not put to auction in accordance with law by the Board of 
Directors, as such, the Board of Directors has been utilizing the 
foundation for their personal gains for the benefit of their nears 
and dears.  
39. 
 
It is also apparent from the record that the National 
Police Foundation (NPF) was established purely for the welfare of 
police officials but the officers at the helm of affairs in the 
SMC No. 11/2011 
74
Foundation allotted land worth billions of rupees at throwaway 
prices i.e. for Rs.100/- only to the ruling elite, including generals, 
bureaucrats, ambassadors, close relatives of top police officials and 
well-connected civilians.  The loot sale of a facility created for the 
welfare of the poor cops has been going on in sectors E-11 and O-9 
of Islamabad, which were purchased by the government-controlled 
NPF on nominal prices for the benefit of all police forces in the 
country. It has also been established on record that the privileged 
ones 
have 
gobbled 
up 
everything, 
generously. 
Such has been the largesse of the NPF that some were allotted two 
and even more, while for some senior police officers, selected 
employees of the NPF and even civilians, floodgates of generosity 
were opened to the extent that more than five plots and in certain 
cases 
more 
than 
ten 
plots 
were 
given 
to 
one 
family. 
In one case, an NPF employee got eight plots from the Foundation 
for himself and his family. There is a long list of police officials and 
even others who got two or more than two plots in the name of 
members of their families. All these allotments were made by 
successive Managing Directors (MDs) of the NPF who were only 
competent to allot one plot to each police official but they illegally 
allotted plots to the civilians, other bureaucrats and military 
personnel.  
40. 
 
As far as the arguments of learned counsel for the ex-
officials of the National Police Foundation that they had acted in 
good faith for the benefit and interest of the Foundation and the 
SMC No. 11/2011 
75
alleged irregularities or lapses are not at all attributable to any 
malafide or deliberate intent on their part,  have no force at all for 
the simple reason that the said ex-officials were in power at the 
relevant time and that they made decisions detrimental to the 
interest of the Foundation and its beneficiaries.  They did not at all 
make their efforts for the betterment and interest of the 
Foundation rather allotted plots to their nears and dears who were 
not at all entitled for such allotment. Even they failed to utilize the 
funds of the Foundation according to the true spirit of the 
constitution thereof, as such, they were fully responsible for the 
acts and omission as highlighted by the inquiry officer in his report, 
referred to hereinabove.   
41. 
 
As far as the case of Anjum Aqeel Khan is concerned, 
suffice it to observe that a fact finding inquiry was conducted by an 
honest and upright officer by associating all the concerned 
including Anjum Aqeel Khan in the said inquiry wherein he had not 
only admitted lapses on his part regarding loss to the Foundation 
but also entered into agreements for making good the loss suffered 
by the Foundation.  Even learned counsel for Anjum Aqeel Khan in 
his CMA No. 3742 of 2013 while summing up his arguments also 
stated that Anjum Aqeel Khan stands ready and willing to abide by 
the terms of the settlement agreement signed by him with the NPF.   
42. 
 
While taking up the issue of settlement agreement 
dated 4.3.2013 arrived at between the Foundation and Anjum 
Aqeel Khan of M/s Land Linkers during pendency of the matter 
SMC No. 11/2011 
76
before this Court in order to make up the loss suffered by the 
Foundation at his hands, we are further fortified from the judgment 
in the case referred supra (PLD 2011 S.C. 619) relevant portion 
wherefrom reads as follows:  
“25. A part of the argument vehemently canvassed at 
the bar was that the main purpose of awarding 
contract to this party was to get the CDA land cleared 
off from the illegal occupants, which the CDA was 
unable to do. In this behalf, reference was made to 
agreements containing recitals of payment of different 
sums of money made to certain persons in lieu of their 
vacating such land. According to the aforesaid 
agreements, huge sums of money running into millions 
of rupees were allegedly paid. But, surprisingly, no 
details of payment, such as bank drafts, pay orders, 
cheques, etc. were given in the said agreements. It is 
not believable that such large sums of money were paid 
in cash. Besides, the agreements in question were 
documents not registered in accordance with law. 
There was, so to say, no valid proof of payment 
furnished to our satisfaction. Further, no details of the 
land allegedly in the illegal possession of the land 
grabbers along with the names/number of encroachers 
were provided. Thus, looked at from any angle, 
the transaction appears to be a sham deal. The 
whole exercise appears to be an eyewash.” 
 
 
 
43. 
 
In this view of the matter the agreements as afore-
stated appears to be another example of fraud with the Foundation 
as there is no date for finalization / completion of the said 
agreements, as such, the said agreements cannot be termed as good 
in the eyes of law.  The said agreements also appears to be a tricky 
to the effect that the same might have been executed in order to 
avoid the consequences of the criminal proceedings got initiated by 
the Foundation against Anjum Aqeel Khan.  The said agreement is, 
therefore, held to be of no legal effect. 
44. 
 
In view of the above discussions, we hold that the Board 
of Directors of the Foundation in connivance with Anjum Aqeel 
SMC No. 11/2011 
77
Khan of M/S Land Linkers with malafide intention gave a huge and 
colossal loss to the Foundation which has surfaced in the enquiry 
report of Mr. Zafar Ahmad Qureshi as stated above.  Board of 
Directors, instead of generating funds for the poor and needy 
persons who were still facing hardships to acquire a roof to live 
under has allotted the plots to their near and dears under the garb 
to generate the funds. 
45. 
 
While summing up our discussion made above, we 
declare that the National Police Foundation was a charitable 
organization established under section 5 of the Charitable 
Endowments Acts, 1890 aiming at helping the poor and for those 
who had lost their lives while being in service or on duty in the 
shape of education, medical relief etc. The Committee of 
Administration/Rule Making Body was not authorized to make 
rules in conflict with or in derogation of the substantive provisions 
of law or the statute under which the rules are framed.  Rules 
cannot go beyond the scope of the Act but the rules/regulations 
were made by the Committee of the Administration of the Police 
Foundation according to their own whims and not according to the 
purposes envisaged by the Charitable Endowment Act.  The 
persons mentioned in para 36 above have been allotted plots who 
were not entitled for such allotment and in some cases they have 
been allotted more than one plot or even a single plot without 
observing any bye-laws/rules, as such, the allotment of plots was 
not made by the Foundation in a transparent manner.  Even some 
SMC No. 11/2011 
78
persons were allotted 1 kanal plot against payment of only Rs. 
100/-.  The allotment of plots in the National Police Foundation 
can be termed a bad example of mal-administration as every officer 
of the said foundation at the helm of affairs tried to loot the 
Foundation by allotting plots to their nears and dears without 
observing any codal formalities required for the purpose.   
46. 
 
Anjum Aqeel Khan who had entered into agreements 
with the National Police Foundation to arrange land for 
establishment of residential colony also got the developed plots 
allotted against affiliation of land to various persons without paying 
the development charges and accounting for the land as per 
formula of the CDA.   
47. 
 
While making allotments of plots the then Board of 
Directors allotted plots to their near and dears ignoring legal 
heirs/family members of those police personnel who had laid down 
their lives for this nation.  Under the Constitution of Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan no one can be permitted even though he be 
the head of the department to purchase all the plots for himself, or 
to give out the same as per his own choice.  There are number of 
examples of such malpractices on the part of the police high ups 
who remained at the helm of affairs in the National Police 
Foundation.   Most of the poor policemen were left up without 
allotment of any plot, though some have been allotted.  The high 
ups of the police hierarchy have purchased a good number of plots 
SMC No. 11/2011 
79
in violation of the purpose the Foundation was established for.  Not 
only that, they after having acquired such plots started business.  
The Board of Directors without observing any legal or codal 
formalities such like advertisement in the press and without 
framing any bye-laws for the allotment of plots doled them out, 
whereas poor policemen are still facing hardships to acquire a roof 
to live under.  Even the land earmarked for lawns/parks was also 
converted into plots for allotment to the higher police officers of the 
ranks of I.G., D.I.G., S.S.P. etc.   
48. 
 
For the foregoing reasons it is held and directed as 
under:- 
 
1.  
The illegalities and irregularities in the procurement of 
land committed by the Board of Directors in connivance 
with Anjum Aqeel Khan are worst examples of 
corruption and corrupt practices and all those who are 
responsible are liable to be penalized in accordance 
with the law of the land and also to make the loss good 
by recovering the said loss through coercive measures. 
2.  
All the plots, one, two or more than that which have 
been illegally and un-authorizedly allotted without 
entitlement, as discussed above, to any person, whether 
police officials, employees of NPF, other government 
officials or the civilians, businessmen, etc. or their 
dependants are declared to be illegally allotted and are 
SMC No. 11/2011 
80
thus cancelled forthwith. However, if they are 
interested to retain the plots in their names they are 
directed to pay price thereof according to the present 
market value within a period of two months from today.   
3. 
Anjum Aqeel Khan or his nominee shall be entitled to 
retain only those plots in lieu whereof he has given land 
for being affiliated and not otherwise, that too subject 
to payment of development charges according to the 
nature of the plots within two months.  In case he or his 
nominee fails to pay the development charges within a 
period of two months, he shall not be entitled to retain 
them. 
4. 
Anjum Aqeel Khan is directed to fulfill his outstanding 
liability of 126 kanals of land as undertaken by him 
through agreement dated 27.5.2011 reproduced in para 
No. 31 and if he is not in a position to provide 126 
kanals of land to the Foundations then he will pay 
present market price of 88 developed plots in 
accordance with 54:46 ratio formula of CDA and 
adopted by the Foundation within the period of two 
months from today, otherwise law will take its own 
course by initiating penal action as well as attachment 
of all his property, moveable or immoveable and that of 
his dependents. 
SMC No. 11/2011 
81
5. 
The persons who are nominated for allotment of plots 
by Anjum Aqeel Khan without having corresponding 
land transferred in the name of NPF or who have filed 
miscellaneous applications against Anjum Aqeel Khan, 
shall not be allotted plots until and unless they are 
found legally entitled to such allotment by way of 
affiliation or through any other mode.  They are at 
liberty to launch any sort of proceedings against Anjum 
Aqeel Khan, if so desired.  However, it is clarified that 
the Foundation will not be responsible for any act or 
omission of said Anjum Aqeel Khan while nominating 
the persons for allotment of plot in the Foundation.   
6. 
Any other shortfall of land is directed to be made up by 
Anjum Aqeel Khan of M/s. Land Linkers. 
7. 
The Managing Director of the National Police 
Foundation is directed to ensure compliance with the 
aforesaid directions in letter and spirit within a period 
of two months from today and submit compliance 
report thereof to this Court, where-after the Auditor 
General for Pakistan shall get the accounts of the 
Foundation audited as well as transactions of allotment 
of plots, affiliation of land and deposit of development 
charges with the Foundation and submit report to this 
Court within a month.  He shall also submit audit 
SMC No. 11/2011 
82
report regarding receipts and payments by the 
Foundation from the date of its creation till date.      
 
49. 
 
As a consequence of our above conclusion, it has been 
found necessary to initiate proceedings against  Anjum Aqeel Khan 
and other responsible persons, whose reference has been made in 
the preceding paras.  Chairman NAB is directed to initiate the 
proceedings under the NAB Ordinance, 1999 as amended, 
promptly, so it may serve the deterrence of like minded people.  It 
is further directed that the progress repot shall be submitted by the 
Chairman NAB through the Registrar of this Court for the action 
taken by him within 90 days.  
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
Announced in Open Court 
By Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry, J.- 
On  31.10.2013 
At Islamabad 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 APPROVED FOR REPORTIG 
 
 
 
(Zulfiqar)  
