IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Original Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja 
Mr. Justice Iqbal Hameedur Rahman 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
C.M.A.No.3854/14 in SMC No.3/09 
(Implementation of the order dated 5.06.2013 passed in SMC 3/09) 
 
AND 
 
C.M.A. No.4341/14 in CMA No.3854/14 in SMC No.3/09 
(Concise statement on behalf of respondent-Bahrai Town () 
 
 
Voluntary Appeared:  
 
Malik Muhammad Shafi, In person  
 
 
 
 
 
Dr. Shafiq ur Rehman, In person  
 
On Court’s Notice: 
 
 
Mr. Razzaq A. Mirza, Addl.A.G. 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Nadee, Ashraf, Sr. Member, BOR 
Mr. Muzaffar Mehmood, Member, BOR 
Mr. Sajid Zafar, DCO, Rwp. 
Mr. Arif Raheem, ADC, Rwp. 
Mr. Tasneem Ahmad Khan, A.C. Rwp. 
Cap. (R) Jahanzeb Khan, Secy. Forests 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Iftikhar Ahmed, Conservator, Rwp. 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Ejaz Ahmed, DFO, Rwp. South  
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. M. Maqsood, Gardawar 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Kala Khan, Gardawar 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. M. Ishfaq, Gardawar 
 
 
 
 
 
Malik Noor Zaman, Tehsildar 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Mustansar Ali Gill, Tehsildar 
 
 
 
 
 
Malik Mumtaz Ahmad, Naib Tehsildar 
 
 
 
 
 
Malik Nisar, Naib Tehsildar 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Waqar Ahmad, Naib Tehsildar 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. M. Safdar, Naib Tehsildar 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Sajid Mahmood, Naib Tehsildar  
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Abdul Shakoor, Naib Tehsildar 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Ameer Anwar, Patwari  
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Tariq Mehmood, Patwari 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Mehmood Ahmad, Patwari 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Abdul Aziz, Patwari 
 
 
For Bahria Town: 
 
 
Ch. Aitzaz Ahsan, Sr. ASC 
Mr. Gohar Ali Khan, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
(on behalf of Syed Ali Zafar, ASC) 
 
 
 
 
 
Raja Zafar Khaliq, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
(on Court call) 
 
 
 
 
 
Raja Abdul Ghafoor, AOR 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
 
31.03.2015 
 
ORDER 
 
 
Jawwad S. Khawaja, J. The case has been called in the supplementary cause list at 
Sr. No.1. Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan, learned Sr. ASC has informed us that Syed Ali Zafar, learned 
ASC who is out of country has told him firstly, that he is on general adjournment and 
CMA No.3854/14 in SMC 3/09 
2 
secondly, that he has moved an application to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of Pakistan. Our 
Office shows that presently there is no such application pending with the Office, although 
there appears to be some application which has been provided to the press which has 
reported in respect of such application in today’s newspapers. An inquiry from the Office 
has revealed that an application was filed but was returned to Raja Abdul Ghafoor AOR for 
Bahria Town on 28.3.2015 with Office objections and has not been refilled after removal of 
objections. A copy of the application has now been supplied to us in Court by Mr. Aitzaz 
Ahsan Sr. ASC.  
2. 
Let the matter come up after 11:30 am. 
3. 
It is now 1:30 p.m. when the matter is again being taken up. On 25.03.2015, this 
matter i.e. CMA No.3854/14 & 4341/14 in CMA No.3854/14 came up for hearing and an 
order was passed wherein we noted that almost two years ago, on 5.06.2013 we had 
directed that the Collector, Rawalpindi being the competent functionary of the Punjab 
Province shall proceed promptly in accordance with law to assert/secure such rights as 
according to him are vested in the Province. We also noted that proceedings which were 
pending before the civil and revenue forums shall be decided by the competent forums 
expeditiously. A report was also sought within thirty days from 5.06.2013. Thereafter 
through a chamber order we were constrained to note that our order of 5.06.2013 had not 
been complied with and as a result the report sought had not been submitted. An order 
dated 18.12.2013 was then passed in chambers by Mr. Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan wherein it 
was recorded that “we do not understand why demarcation of property is procrastinated [sic] on 
one pretext or another. Issuance of stay order or its refusal will not have much bearing on the 
determination of demarcation of boundaries. We are also at a loss to understand as to why the spade 
work facilitating the resolution of the dispute, is avoided. Let show cause notices to all concerned be 
issued requiring them to explain their position in this behalf. ” A period of more than 16 months 
has elapsed since the aforesaid chamber order. It is for this reason that when we had 
ascertained that action had not been taken in compliance with our order of 5.06.2013 we 
directed that the matter be fixed in Court.  
4. 
On the last date of hearing i.e. 25.03.2015 we were informed by Mr. Gohar Ali Khan, 
ASC that Syed Ali Zafar, learned ASC for M/s Bahria Town was unavailable because he 
was on general adjournment. We noted that no request for general adjournment was before 
CMA No.3854/14 in SMC 3/09 
3 
us but nonetheless, we extended courtesy to Mr. Gohar Ali Khan, ASC although he was not 
counsel in this mater, and adjourned the case for today in order not to cause any prejudice 
to Syed Ali Zafar’s client. We may record that because the request for general adjournment 
was not before us and we were not even informed that the general adjournment had been 
granted, that we directed that this matter be listed for hearing today i.e. 31.03.2015. Today 
Raja Abdul Ghafoor, who is AOR and has instructed Syed Ali Zafar, learned ASC in the 
matter, is present. He was not present on 25.03.2015 but stated that he was in the Court 
room but could not hear when the case was called. We accept this submission as a 
statement made at the Bar but what is still not understandable is as to why the application 
for general adjournment had not been placed before us. This aspect of the case is being 
dealt with in some detail because Ch. Aitzaz Ahsan, learned Sr. ASC has appeared on 
behalf of Syed Ali Zafar, learned ASC and informed the Court that he had received 
telephonic instructions from Syed Ali Zafar, ASC in which he stated firstly, that he was on 
general adjournment and secondly, that an application had been filed by him addressed to 
Hon’ble the Chief Justice.  
5. 
At this point we have to take note of the fact that reference to the said application 
addressed to the Chief Justice had appeared in various newspapers and was noticed by 
some functionaries of the Supreme Court this morning. We find this to be somewhat 
surprising because firstly, Rule 164 of the Legal Practitioner and Bar Councils Rules, 1976 
states that “publications in newspapers by an advocate as to pending or anticipated litigation may 
interfere with a fair trial in the courts and otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice. 
Generally they are to be condemned”. We, however, will not comment further on this aspect of 
the case because Syed Ali Zafar, ASC is not present today and only he may be able to 
explain this circumstance. Let him submit his explanation. 
6. 
We also inquired and were informed by the Office that no such application is 
pending as it was returned to the AOR on 28.3.2015. Something may now be said about the 
aforesaid application itself. Para-8 of the said application being relevant is reproduced as 
under:- 
“8. 
That it is an established principle of law that “justice must not only be 
done but seen to be done”. The CM of the M/s Bahria Town in which 
the M/s Bahria Town is challenging the very jurisdictional basis in law 
CMA No.3854/14 in SMC 3/09 
4 
under which the court is conducting these post decision proceedings and 
wherein the M/s Bahria Town is submitting that this honourable court 
does not have any jurisdiction in law to direct the respondent to take 
action against the M/s Bahria Town without a fair trial which is pending 
and has to be first decided, yet the honourable judge Justice Jawad S. 
Khawja again and again directed and threatened the officer concerned of 
the Government to take action against the M/s Bahria Town otherwise 
his service may be harmed. This has created reasonably in the mind of the 
M/s Bahria Town as a litigant that the learned judge has already made 
up his mind to dismiss/has effectively negated the CM filed by the M/s 
Bahria Town and is proceeding with the case regardless. This coupled 
with the fact that the Hon’ble Judge Mr. Justice Jawad S. Khawaja 
refused to accept the general adjournment of undersigned and has passed 
various observations and even passed order and also fixed the next date 
of hearing as 31st knowing that undersigned is not available, all of which 
has serious impact on the final decision. The M/s Bahria Town has 
serious apprehension that the Hon’ble Judge has already made up his 
mind to decide the case against the M/s Bahria Town in the absence of 
the its counsel and hence it is in the interest of justice if the case is put 
up before another Bench. The learned judge even at one stage remarked 
that he will not record the order of direction to the government officials 
and the oral observations should be sufficient.” (emphasis supplied) 
 
7. 
We find it extremely disconcerting that so many wrong assertions have been made 
in the application, probably on the basis of some hearsay which someone or the other may 
have conveyed to Syed Ali Zafar, ASC who is abroad. The first thing which we need to 
comment on is the statement that the Judge has already made up his mind. On what basis 
this assertion has been made is noted in the excerpt of the application reproduced above 
but it is quite baseless as it does not even remotely mean that the Court has made up its 
mind to dismiss the CMA filed by the M/s Bahria Town. The second patently false 
assertion is that Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja refused to accept the general adjournment of 
the undersigned (Syed Ali Zafar) and that the hearing was adjourned to 31.03.2015 
CMA No.3854/14 in SMC 3/09 
5 
knowing that Syed Ali Zafar is not available. This is a patently false assertion causing 
aspersion not only on the Judge but the entire Court and judiciary of this Country. The 
order passed on 25.03.2015 shows that neither Syed Ali Zafar, ASC was present nor was the 
learned AOR Raja Abdul Ghafoor and there was definitely no application for general 
adjournment placed before the Court on that date. It is only as a matter of courtesy which 
the Court extended to a member of our Bar that information given by Mr. Gohar Ali Khan 
was noted in our order of 25.03.2015 to the effect that Syed Ali Zafar, ASC was on general 
adjournment. Mr. Gohar Ali Khan, ASC did not give any indication as to when the general 
adjournment of Syed Ali Zafar would end. We, therefore, directed that in order not to 
prejudice the client of Syed Ali Zafar, ASC the case be adjourned to 31.03.2015 (today). It is 
only today that we have been informed that Syed Ali Zafar, ASC will not be available till 
1.04.2015. Ch. Aitzaz Ahsan, Sr. ASC stated that the Court should have extended a further 
courtesy to the absent advocate and should on its own initiative have inquired from the 
office if there indeed was an adjournment application and the date upto which 
adjournment had been allowed. With great respect to the learned Sr. ASC, this is wholly 
untenable and unjustified and is also not in conformity with the Rules and practice of the 
Court. Courtesy is always extended to the members of the Bar, as it was extended in this 
case to Mr. Gohar Ali Khan, ASC. However, it is always for the party or the ASC to ensure 
presence of the AOR at the hearing and it is for the AOR to inform the Court that the 
learned counsel is on adjournment or at the very least to file an application giving 
intimation of the general adjournment. Ch. Aitzaz Ahsan, learned Sr. ASC then pointed out 
that in the order of 25.03.2015 it had been recorded that State land be recovered although 
the report itself relating to demarcation was inconclusive. He also stated that the order of 
25.03.2015 was prejudicial to M/s Bahria Town client of Syed Ali Zafar, ASC. Syed Ali 
Zafar, ASC shall have the opportunity to explain the patently false and scurrilous assertion 
made in his application. Let him do so. We may however, reiterate that in our order of 
5.06.2013, we had stated as under:- 
“Since, we are not to record evidence and make a determination in these proceedings 
as to the respective rights/title of the parties in the land in question or as to the 
criminal liability of delinquent individuals, the Collector, Rawalpindi who, as noted 
above, is the competent functionary of the Punjab Province shall proceed promptly in 
accordance with law to assert/secure such rights as according to him are vested in the 
CMA No.3854/14 in SMC 3/09 
6 
Province. The pending proceedings before the Civil and Revenue forums shall be 
decided by the competent forums expeditiously and a report of the status of these 
proceedings be submitted for our perusal within 30 days. SMC No. 3 of 2009 stands 
disposed of.” 
 
The third allegation in the application of Mr. Ali Zafar is the most egregious and 
scandalous. When the Court comes to the conclusion that its order which was passed 
almost two years ago and which had directed that the Collector, Rawalpindi shall proceed 
promptly in accordance with law has not been compiled with, it becomes incumbent upon 
the Court to take action as has been done in the present case. Ensuring compliance of our 
order of 5.6.2013, two years after the same was passed or our chamber order of 18.12.2014 
after the lapse of almost 16 months is necessary for the effective enforcement and execution 
of Court orders. No person can feel threatened by the efforts made by the Court to ensure 
compliance of its orders. We may also add that the government functionaries, in particular 
Mr. Sajid Zafar, Collector Rawalpindi was directed to comply with our orders. Referring to 
this effort on the part of the Court as a threat to the officer concerned, is wholly uncalled 
for.   
8. 
On the last date of hearing also, we had directed that the Collector shall make sure 
that action according to law is taken and our orders are complied with. We may also at this 
point note that it was as far back as 5th June, 2013 almost 22 months ago that we had passed 
our order and it is only because of non-compliance thereof that we had passed the chamber 
order of 18.12.2013 and had also directed the issuance of show cause notices to all 
concerned requiring them to explain their conduct in this behalf. Only one of the persons 
has filed a reply to the show cause notice i.e. respondent No.2 namely, Sher Alam 
Mehsood. It is for this reason that in Crl. P. No.110/14 notices were issued to the 
respondents other than respondents Nos.2,5,6 &23. Ch. Aitzaz Ahsan, learned Sr. ASC then 
emphasized that according to Syed Ali Zafar, ASC the application addressed to Hon’ble the 
Chief Justice has been received in the office. In this behalf we have already ascertained from 
the Office as noted above.  
9. 
Coming back to the aforesaid application addressed to Hon’ble the Chief Justice and 
the extract therefrom which has been reproduced above, it has been stated by Syed Ali 
Zafar, ASC that the action of Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja “has created reasonably in the mind of 
CMA No.3854/14 in SMC 3/09 
7 
the M/s Bahria Town as a litigant that the learned judge has already made up his mind to 
dismiss/has effectively negated the CM filed by the M/s Bahria Town and is proceeding with the case 
regardless.”. This apprehension on the part of the M/s Bahria Town has been repeated 
further in the extract of the application reproduced above. We may note that the M/s 
Bahria Town is merely a corporate entity and it has no mind of its own and can have no 
apprehension of its own. It only acts through natural persons such as its directors, chief 
executive etc. Syed Ali Zafar, ASC may therefore, explain to the Court as to who has the 
apprehension and on what basis. In any event prima facie, there appear to be some 
significant breaches of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 and of the Code of Conduct 
prescribed for Advocates under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973. These 
apparent violations include violation by an Advocate “to uphold at all times the dignity and 
high standing of his profession as well as his own dignity and high standing as a member thereof”.  
10. 
It may be added that an Advocate is not a tool or a puppet in the hands of his client, 
obliged to pander to the desires of the client, right or wrong. Rule 156 of the Pakistan Legal 
Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976 states that “nothing operates, more certainly to 
create or foster popular prejudice against Advocates as a class, and to deprive the profession of [the] 
public esteem … which belongs to the proper discharge of its duties”. The Rule further stipulates 
that “the Office of an Advocate does not permit, much less does it demand of him … the violation of 
any law or any manner of fraud or chicanery. In doing his professional duty to his client he must 
obey the voice of his own conscience and not that of his client”.  An honest, upright and ethical 
Bar is absolutely essential for the just dispensation of justice, particularly in our adversarial 
legal system. This has to be ensured at all cost if an independent Bench and Bar are to be 
maintained.        
11. 
We may also point out at this stage that this Court has been hearing a number of 
cases involving M/s Bahria Town or its directors. It can be recalled that 4, 5 or even more 
cases were filed against the M/s Bahria Town by various individuals. Syed Ali Zafar, ASC 
was representing the M/s Bahria Town in those cases also. A number of those cases were 
decided in favour of the M/s Bahria Town and no apprehension was ever expressed at that 
time although some cases were decided in a manner not strictly in accordance with the 
wishes of the M/s Bahria Town. The office shall trace those cases also and place the same 
on record.  
CMA No.3854/14 in SMC 3/09 
8 
12. 
Since Syed Ali Zafar, ASC is on general adjournment till 01.04.2015, let this matter 
be listed for hearing on 2.04.2015. Syed Ali Zafar, ASC will be given full opportunity to give 
his explanation in respect of the matters noted above so that appropriate orders can be 
passed.  
 
 
 
  
Judge 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
ISLAMABAD 
31st March, 2015 
(Nasir Khan)  
