IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
 
 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR 
 
 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED 
 
 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE MAQBOOL BAQAR 
 
 
CIVIL PETITIONS NOS.1774, 1783 & 410-Q OF 2015 
(Against the judgment dated 20.8.2014 of the High Court of 
Baluchistan, Quetta passed in CP No.332 of 2012) 
 
Mehmood Khan and others 
 
 
(In CP 1774/14)  
Mir Maqbool Ahmed Lehri 
 
 
(In CP 1783/14) 
Mir Muhammad Afzal and others  
 
(In CP 410-Q/14)  
… 
Petitioners  
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
Government of Baluchistan and others 
(In CP 1774/14) 
Mir Muhammad Afzal and others 
 
(In CP 1783/14) 
Government of Baluchistan and others  
(In CP 410-Q/14) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
… 
Respondents 
 
 
For the petitioners 
 
Mr. Tariq Mehmood, Sr.ASC 
(Nos.1-3 in CP No.774/14) 
 
 
 
(No.4 in CP No.774/14) 
 
Mr. Ali Ahmed Kurd, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Tariq Aziz, AOR. 
 
(In CP 1783/14)  
 
Mr. Kamran Murtaza, ASC 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR. 
 
(In 410-Q/14) 
 
 
Mr.Muhammad Qahir Shah, ASC 
 
For the respondent 
 
Not represented (in all cases) 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
 
27.5.2015 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
MAQBOOL BAQAR, J.- The petitioners, in the above 
three petitions, have assailed the judgment dated 20.8.2014, in 
terms whereof a learned Division Bench of the High Court of 
Baluchistan, disposed of Constitution Petition No.332 of 2012 filed 
by petitioners in CPLA No.410-Q of 2004, whereby the said 
petitioners, inter alia, sought a declaration that order of allotment 
of land bearing Khasra No.2250/517, situated in Mahal Sirki 
Kalan Tappu Saddar, District Quetta in favour of one of the 
CP 1774, 1783 & 410-Q/14 
2 
Respondent namely Sultan Ahmed (being respondent No.9 in the 
said petition) and its subsequent transfer in favour of respondent 
Nos.10, 11 and 12, has been passed illegally and by misuse of 
authority, and to direct the concerned authority to allot the same 
to the petitioners, being the petitioners before us in CPLA No.410-
Q of 2014.  
2. 
 
The facts of the case, in brief, are that the land bearing 
Khasra No.517, measuring 6 rods and 36 poles situated in Mahal 
Sarki Kalan, Mouza Sirki, Tappu Saddar, Tehsil and District 
Quetta, owned by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner in 
CPLA No.410-Q of 2014 was acquired by the Government of 
Baluchistan under the Baluchistan Land Acquisition Ordinance 
1979, for construction of a bridge over a railway track to connect 
Zarghoon Road and Sariab Road in Quetta. The transfer of the 
land in favour of the Government of Baluchistan was accordingly 
recorded in the revenue record. The overhead bridge was 
constructed by Quetta Development Authority (“QDA”), however, a 
portion of the aforesaid acquired land, measuring 30,492 sq.ft. 
(“the land”), which remained unutilized and was reserved for the 
future expansion of the bridge, more fully described in the first 
para of this order, was purportedly sold to Respondent-Sultan 
Ahmed 
through 
a 
purported 
sale 
deed 
dated 
26.4.2007, 
purportedly executed by QDA in favour of Respondent-Sultan 
Ahmed. At the relevant time the petitioner Maqbool Ahmed Lehri 
was the Nazim, City District Government, in which capacity he 
held the post of Chairman QDA also. Neither was any 
advertisement placed by QDA as required in terms of clause (a) of 
sub-section (2) of section 113 of the Quetta Development Authority 
Ordinance, nor was the land offered to those from whom the same 
was acquired, before the purported sale.  
CP 1774, 1783 & 410-Q/14 
3 
3. 
 
However, before we proceed any further, it would be 
relevant to briefly record the history of the case; in fact, prior to 
acquiring the land through the purported sale deed, it was in the 
year 1987 that Respondent-Sultan Ahmed procured a purported 
allotment of the land from petitioner Maqbool Ahmed Lehri, while 
the later was Mayor Municipal Corporation Quetta (“MCQ”), and as 
such the purported lease deed was executed by the said petitioner 
in favour of the Respondent-Sultan Ahmed for a period of 30 years 
on 06.5.1990. For such allotment Respondent-Sultan Ahmed 
initially applied to the Minister for QDA/WASA Baluchistan, who 
sought comments from MCQ. The Municipal Engineer MCQ, 
though in his note stated that the ownership of the land is of QDA, 
yet recommended leasing out the land in favour of Respondent-
Sultan Ahmed, and sought permission to allot/lease out the land 
and to execute such agreement in favour of Respondent-Sultan 
Ahmed. The petitioner Maqbool Lehri who, as noted above, was 
Mayor MCQ, endorsed the above for the approval of the Minister 
for QDA/WASA. Thereafter, respondent-Sultan Ahmed applied to 
the Chief Minister for allotment of the land for thirty years enabling 
him to establish and run a nursery, the Chief Minister, obliged by 
endorsing “Please allot for thirty years”. Whereafter, the allotment 
and lease as noted above were granted. The lease, as disclosed by 
MCQ in its written statement in suit No.979/1993, was however 
terminated on 19.4.1993. On the said very date, i.e. 19.4.1993, 
MCQ also initiated criminal proceedings under section 133 Cr.P.C. 
for resumption of possession of the land. Respondent-Sultan 
Ahmed thus, on the one hand, on 20.4.1993, filed the above noted 
suit in the Court of Civil Judge-I, Quetta for declaration and 
permanent injunction against the Administrator, MCQ, Municipal 
Magistrate, Illaqa Magistrate and the concerned SHO, in respect of 
CP 1774, 1783 & 410-Q/14 
4 
the land in question, and on the other hand filed a Criminal 
Revision before the Additional Session Judge, Quetta. In his suit 
Respondent-Sultan Ahmed alleged that the defendants are 
attempting to dispossess him from the land. Upon knowledge of 
the suit QDA joined the proceedings as defendant No.5. In their 
written statements the defendants denied Respondent-Sultan 
Ahmed’s claim over the land. MCQ in its written statement averred 
that the purported lease deed has been terminated on 19.4.1993, 
and that MCQ is not the owner of the land, and was not authorized 
to execute the purported lease, and further that the lease “is 
neither properly stamped nor registered as required under the law”, 
whereas QDA in its written statement claimed that the lease is 
“patently void”. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, through 
order dated 26.10.1995, held that admittedly QDA is the owner of 
the land and since the purported lease has been cancelled by the 
Administrator, MCQ on 19.3.1993, Respondent-Sultan Ahmed has 
no locus standi and his possession of the land is unauthorized, 
and dismissed the suit. Upon an appeal filed by Respondent-
Sultan Ahmed on 8.5.1996 the dismissal order was set-aside and 
the suit was remanded to the trail Court. The aforesaid criminal 
revision was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge on 
30.11.1993. 
Through 
judgment 
dated 
09.1.1994, 
Crl.Misc. 
Quashment Application filed by Respondent-Sultan Ahmed in the 
High Court of Baluchistan was also dismissed. Criminal Petition 
filed by Respondent-Sultan Ahmed against the said judgment 
before this Court was, on 23.11.1994, disposed of on the basis of a 
statement of the Additional Advocate General, that no proceedings 
under section 133 Cr.P.C. are pending against Respondent-Sultan 
Ahmed.  
CP 1774, 1783 & 410-Q/14 
5 
4. 
 
In his letter dated 29.6.1996 addressed to Chief 
Engineer/Director (Estate), QDA, Quetta, the Administrator MCQ 
conveyed to the latter that the propriety rights of the suit land does 
not belong to the MCQ and therefore any agreement executed by 
the Ex-Mayor MCQ with Respondent-Sultan Ahmed is of no legal 
effect and the same being void is not required to be cancelled. 
5. 
 
Respondent-Sultan Ahmed was, through order dated 
07.11.1997, allowed to withdraw the aforesaid suit with permission 
to file a fresh suit, the withdrawal was however allowed subject to 
payment of cost of Rs.25,000/-. He, however, did not file a fresh 
suit in respect of the action/decision impugned through the suit 
withdrawn.  
6. 
 
Undettered by the above cancellation, Respondent-
Sultan Ahmed in his pursuit to grab the suit land, after waiting for 
an opportune time, on 01.4.1997 submitted another application to 
the Chief Minister, where he concealed the termination of his 
purported allotment/lease and all the above noted subsequent 
events, and simply claimed that  though the suit land was allotted 
to him for nursery by the former Minister Local Bodies through the 
former Mayor, MCQ in the year 1991 but some people are creating 
difficulties in his way and requested the Chief Minister to order 
allotment of the land, and for direction to the QDA to settle the 
price through negotiation with him. The then Chief Minister sought 
report in the matter. Unfortunately, the Chief Minister was not 
apprised of the correct legal and factual position in the matter, and 
on 28.9.1997, he passed an order as follow:- 
“This is an old case and the Authority has already 
given the approval for lease of land and settlement 
with the applicant. Now, since the applicant wants to 
buy the land, the Director General, QDA may settle the 
matter by negotiations with the applicant, keeping in 
CP 1774, 1783 & 410-Q/14 
6 
view the rates of Commercial and other categories in 
mind.” 
 
However, pursuant to the above orders, the Chief Secretary, 
Baluchistan, 
through 
his 
note 
dated 
29.9.1997, 
sought 
information regarding the legal claim of the Government over the 
land. The Secretary Local Government, instead of meeting the 
query, observed that the file was sent to the government by 
mistake and referred the same to QDA “for necessary action”. 
Whereupon the Director (Estate) Commercial, QDA, suppressing all 
the crucial aspects of the matter as noted above, simply stated that 
the land in question is in possession of Respondent-Sultan Ahmed 
since 1991, and forwarded the aforesaid purported lease deed 
executed by the former Mayor, MCQ in favour of Respondent-
Sultan Ahmed. Through letter dated 21.10.1997, Director General, 
QDA in purported compliance of the Chief Minister’s order dated 
28.9.1997, called Respondent-Sultan Ahmed for negotiations. In 
the meanwhile, the so called prevailing market rates of the 
residential and commercial lands in the vicinity of the subject land 
were obtained by QDA through Deputy  Commissioner, Quetta, 
who through his letter dated 28.11.1997, conveyed the rate of 
residential land in the vicinity as being Rs.200 per sq.ft and that 
the rates of such commercial lands ranges between Rs.200 to 500 
per sq.ft. A summary was then prepared and submitted before the 
Chief Minister, Baluchistan saying that after negotiations with 
Respondent-Sultan Ahmed, the rates of the land have been agreed 
at Rs.400 per sq.ft for commercial portion and Rs.150 per sq.ft for 
residential portion. The Chief Minister, as noted by his Private 
Secretary on the relevant file on 6.4.1998, ordered that “a case for 
lease rent for 30 years at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per annum may be 
processed and re-submitted for perusal/order”. On 29.5.1998, the 
CP 1774, 1783 & 410-Q/14 
7 
Chief Secretary, Baluchistan in his bid to save the land from being 
dolled out as above, ordered as follow:-  
“Please submit a summary to the Chief Minster 
pointing out the implications of this decision which will 
impact adversely on the QDA as the land is much too 
valuable to be  leased out like that; and besides there 
is no precedent to return the acquired land paid for by 
public agency like QDA. Also please refer to Land 
Acquisition Act.”  
 
7. 
 
However, through letter dated 20.8.1998, DG, QDA 
offered the price of the land @ Rs.450 per sq.ft for commercial 
portion and Rs.200 per sq.ft for residential portion, such portions 
having been earmarked by the Incharge Town Planning, QDA, and 
required Respondent-Sultan Ahmed to respond within a week’s 
time. It may be significant to note here that no where it is even 
mentioned as to when, how, in what manner, on what basis, under 
what law, rules and regulations and/or policy, and under what 
authority the land was bifurcated into commercial and residential 
categories. It is also not explained as to on what basis and under 
which criteria the sizes, location and demarcation of the two 
purported categories was affected. In response Respondent-Sultan 
Ahmed, through letter dated 31.8.1998, stated that the agreed rate 
being Rs.400 per sq.ft for commercial portion and Rs.150 per sq.ft 
for the residential area, the offer be amended accordingly. The 
matter of allotment was placed before the Governing Body, QDA in 
its meeting held on 01.1.1999, however, the Governing Body 
rejected the very proposal to sale and decided that:- 
“i) 
The land occupied illegally by Mr.Sultan 
Ahmed s/o Shadi Khan may be got 
vacated 
with 
the 
help 
of 
concerned 
authorities. 
CP 1774, 1783 & 410-Q/14 
8 
ii) 
The construction of second phase of the 
bridge may be examined and report be 
submitted.” 
  
8. 
 
Through letter dated 30.4.1999, DG, QDA informed 
Respondent-Sultan Ahmed of the above decision and that the 
aforesaid letter dated 20.8.1998 be treated as withdrawn. 
9. 
 
However, the matter did not rest here, as Respondent-
Sultan Ahmed, suppressing the above decision of the Governing 
Body and all the other adverse developments, and despite the fact 
that upon the above decision there remained no basis/offer (of 
whatever worth same might have been), and thus there was 
absolutely no question of making any payment towards the land, 
through an undated letter requested the Chief Minister for an 
order directing the DG QDA to allow him to deposit 50% of the 
price of the land. The Chief Minister through letter dated 
30.6.2003, directed that “the applicant be allowed to deposit the 
cost of the plot as per agreed rate”. It may be noted that the rates 
were purportedly agreed six years before the said order and that in 
the meanwhile the value of the land appreciated substantially.  
10. 
 
However, still Respondent-Sultan Ahmed did not make 
any payment and wrote yet another undated letter to the Chief 
Minister stating that “unfortunately the applicant could not deposit 
the said cost of land”. The Chief Minister once again obliged the 
applicant, and on 23.8.2004, directed DG QDA, to grant 
permission to the applicant to deposit the price of the plot as 
“already agreed”. 
11. 
 
A Summary dated 27.8.2004, was then submitted 
before the Chief Minister, which, inter alia, disclosed that 
Respondent-Sultan 
Ahmed, 
has 
through 
an 
application 
approached NAB and expressed his willingness to deposit the 
CP 1774, 1783 & 410-Q/14 
9 
entire amount of the present market value of the land, and that in 
the event he is unable to make such payment, he shall surrender 
the land to QDA, whereupon the NAB sought comments from QDA 
and that QDA conveyed its no objection, subject to approval by its 
governing body, but Respondent-Sultan Ahmed surrendered the 
land to QDA. The summary placed before the Chief Minister two 
options, being (i) restoration of the offer made to Respondent-
Sultan Ahmed earlier, or (ii) to sale the land at the prevailing 
market rate subject to the approval of the Governing Body QDA. 
The Chief Minister endorsed the following note on the summary:- 
“para 5 to be definitely to be xxxxxxx [deleted]  as 
proposed for xxxx [deleted]  for restoration”   
 
12. 
 
It was after a lapse of 17 months of the above, and 
only after the petitioner Maqbool Ahmed Lehri become Nazim, 
MCQ, as well as Chairman QDA, that the matter was purportedly 
placed before the Governing Body of the QDA, in its meeting held 
on 28.1.2006, which meeting was convened only for the approval of 
a revised budget, that the issue of the subject land was put before 
the Board by way of an “ex-agenda item” under the heading 
“Confirmation of orders of Chief Minister Baluchistan - land of 
Mr.Sultan Ahmed” and as per the purported minutes of the 
meeting, the board purportedly decided as follows:- 
“The house confirmed the directives of Hon’ble 
Chief Minister Baluchistan issued vide U.O.No.PS-
CM/1-1/2003/2078 dated 13.6.2003 & U.O. 
No.PS-CM/1-1/2004 dated 01.9.2004 and also 
confirmed the letter No.2-395/93(QDA)E(C)/ 760-
62 dated 18.9.2004 issued by QDA. It was 
further decided that the allottee may deposit the 
balance cost of land as per direction of the CM.” 
 
CP 1774, 1783 & 410-Q/14 
10
13. 
 
Regarding the above meeting/proceedings, it is pointed 
out that it was the very first meeting under the chairmanship of 
petitioner Maqbool Ahmed Lehri. It is alleged that the members of 
the Governing Body who participated in the meeting stated before 
the NAB authorities that neither was any issue pertaining to the 
land/“ex-agenda item”, discussed in the said meeting nor was any 
such proposal/item approved. It is further contended that under 
the relevant rules, the minutes of the meeting of the Governing 
Body were/are supposed to be signed either by the Director 
Administration or by DG QDA, but the minutes in question have 
purportedly been singed by the Chairman, Maqbool Ahmed Lehri, 
the petitioner. It is further pointed out, and as is also evident from 
the relevant extract of the minutes of the meeting, the earlier 
decision of the Governing Body rejecting the proposal of sale of 
land to Respondent-Sultan Ahmed and for getting it vacated and 
submitting a report for the expansion of the bridge was concealed 
from the Board.  
14. 
 
The purported sale deed was then purportedly 
executed by QDA on 26.4.2007, however, since the same did not 
specify therein the land purportedly sold, a deed of rectification 
was sought to be executed. However, DG QDA through letter dated 
13.2.2010 informed the concerned Sub-Registrar that the said 
deed of rectification has not been issued with his approval and is 
therefore not be entertained. He further cautioned the Sub-
Registrar that “The sale has some doubts and objection which are 
being examined”. However, it seems that such deed of rectification 
had been registered by the time the above letter was sent. 
15. 
 
As noted above, admittedly the land was owned 
neither by MCQ nor by QDA, and was/is owned by the 
Government of Baluchistan and therefore none of the above bodies 
CP 1774, 1783 & 410-Q/14 
11
was either competent or authorized to sale the land, even 
otherwise in terms of section 113 of the Quetta Development 
Authority Ordinance, 1978, which reads as follows:-   
“113. Power to dispose of land- 
(1) The Authority may retain, or may lease, well, 
exchange, rent or otherwise dispose of any land 
vested in or acquired by it under this Ordinance. 
(2) Whenever the Authority decides to lease or sell 
any land acquired by it under this Ordinance from 
any person, it shall- 
(a) give notice through advertisement in 
newspapers published in the Quetta 
City. 
(b) 
offer to the person or persons, from 
whom the land has been acquired, or 
their heirs, executors or administrators, 
a prior right to lease or purchase such 
land, at rate to be fixed by the 
Authority, 
if 
in 
its 
discretion 
it 
determines that such lease or sale is in 
the public interest.”   
 
Firstly, it is an essential pre-requisite to determine as to whether or 
not the sale of any land vested in or acquired by QDA would be in 
the public interest, secondly, it is mandatory to publish notice of 
the proposed sale by QDA in the newspapers published in the city 
of Quetta, and thirdly, and in the foremost, it is essentially 
required that in case the land is an acquired land, it be first offered 
to the person(s) from whom the same has been acquired. However, 
as evident from the foregoing, none of the above essential statutory 
requirements were met in respect of the transactions in question. 
16. 
 
It is also crucial to note that since admittedly the land 
was/is owned by the Government of Baluchistan, it was to be dealt 
with under and in terms of Baluchistan Land Lease Policy, 2000 
(“the policy”), formulated in pursuance of sub-section (2) of Section 
10 of the Colonization of Government Land Act, 1912, and 
published in the Baluchistan Gazette on 01.12.2000. Clause 4(2) 
of which policy mandates that “all state land falling within five 
miles of the limits of Municipal Committee/Municipal Corporation 
and within three miles of Town Committee will be reserved for 
CP 1774, 1783 & 410-Q/14 
12
further utilization”. The land being situated within the city of 
Quetta, thus fell under the above restriction/prohibition and was 
therefore not saleable at all. The land, as noted earlier, was part of 
the land acquired for the construction of a bridge and after 
construction of the first phase was reserved for the construction of 
second phase thereof, the above fact, as noted earlier, was also 
acknowledged by the Governing Body of the QDA in its meeting 
held on 01.4.1999 and thus, in view of the clause 3 (2) of the 
policy, which prescribes that land can only be leased provided it 
was not required for “public building, other public sector projects”, 
could not have been leased out at all. 
17. 
 
Furthermore, even the lease permissible under the 
policy, can, in terms of sub-clause (1) of clause 5 of the Policy, be 
granted for a period of thirty years only. Rates of the yearly rent 
money, as stipulated by sub-clause (2) of clause 5 of the Policy, is 
to be determined by a Committee, keeping in view the market 
value/performance. The policy in terms of sub-clause (3) of clause 
5 further requires that “the highest standard of transparency will 
be ensured” and “after giving due publically” and further that the 
lease money is to be charged “as per market value or through the 
process of auction”. In terms of terms of clause 10 of the policy 
there is a clear prohibition against assignment/sub-letting or 
transfer of the lease land or any part thereof by the lessee. The 
authority for grant of lease as designated through clause 16 of the 
policy, is “Collector as defined under the Land Revenue Act, 1967”. 
However, as evident from the foregoing narration of events, every 
single provision of the policy has been trampled in the present 
case. 
18. 
 
The land, as noted earlier, was compulsorily acquired 
by the Government of Baluchistan for a public purpose, “public 
CP 1774, 1783 & 410-Q/14 
13
purpose” having been exempted from the bar against compulsory 
acquisition as prescribed by Article 24 of the Constitution, which 
provision guarantees protection of propriety rights in accordance 
with law, and therefore, not utilizing the land for the public 
purpose and selling the same to private person(s) is violative of the 
object, spirit, principle and the purpose of the provisions of Article 
24 of the Constitution, in view whereof, the land, even in case the 
same would not have been required for any public purpose, and 
even otherwise could have been lawfully sold, the person(s) from 
whom the same was acquired ought to have been provided an 
opportunity to participate in the process so as to enable them to 
make an offer for its purchase in accordance with law. The sale in 
question is, therefore, violative of the mandate of the constitution 
also. 
19. 
 
From the narration of the facts and events herein 
above, it can been seen that not only the policy was violated and 
contravened but prima facie the subject transactions were affected 
through fraudulent machinations. 
The suppression of the 
termination and cancellation of the purported lease and rejection 
of proposal for sale by the Governing Body QDA, have been spelt 
out from the above narration quite clearly. It has not been 
explained as to how, why, under what law, rule and regulations or 
policy, and under what authority the land reserved for a public 
sector project was designated/bifurcated into/as “Residential” and 
“Commercial” categories, and as to under what criteria and on what 
basis the area and locations/dimensions of such purported 
categories were determined/affected.  
20. 
 
Though 
illegally, 
however, 
the 
Chief 
Minister 
Baluchistan clearly directed that “the case for lease land for 30 
years at the rate of Rs.15000 per annum may be processed” the 
CP 1774, 1783 & 410-Q/14 
14
purported sale is therefore also contrary to and violative of the 
order of the Chief Minister. 
21. 
 
As per the NAB, the members of the Governing Body, 
who participated in the meeting dated 01.4.1999, disclosed before 
the NAB that neither they had any notice of the issue pertaining to 
the land being taken up in the aforesaid meeting, nor the 
matter/issue was in fact taken up or decided, as wrongly 
mentioned in the purported minutes of the meeting. It is further 
alleged that the DG QDA who also is a member of the Governing 
Body QDA, though his letter dated 29.9.2006, confirmed that the 
issue of the land was not discussed in the meeting. The 
involvement, interest and enthusiasm of the petitioner Maqbool 
Ahmed Lehri in this matter from the very beginning can been seen 
from the facts that it was him who as Mayor MCQ, forwarded the 
recommendation of the Municipal Engineer for leasing the land in 
favour of Respondent-Sultan Ahmed and for executing the 
agreement accordingly, for the approval of the concerned Minister, 
and that, as evident from the approval note itself, the approval was 
granted on Lehri’s recommendation. And thereafter the purported 
allotment letter and the purported lease deed was also executed by 
him. Furthermore in the process of the subsequent transaction, 
i.e. the execution of the sale deed, the matter remained pending for 
about seventeen (17) months and was purportedly placed before 
the Governing Body, QDA, immediately upon petitioner Maqbool 
Ahmed Lehri assuming the office of the Chairman QDA, by way of 
“ex-agenda item”, where purported approval of the sale was 
purportedly obtained, by suppressing the adverse decision made 
by the Governing Body, QDA earlier. The above purported approval 
and the consequential purported sale was in conflict with the 
earlier decision of the QDA and MCQ and their stance in the 
CP 1774, 1783 & 410-Q/14 
15
relevant proceedings before the various courts. The land was doled 
out at the rate purportedly assessed seven years earlier, and to 
further unduly favour the beneficiary larger part of the land was 
designated as residential to which category lower rate was applied. 
The above misuse of the authority, prima facie appears, was not 
just to benefit Respondent-Sultan Ahmed, the purported allottee, 
but was so exercised for the benefit of a real brother and two 
paternal cousins of petitioner Maqbool Ahmed Lehri in whose 
favour the land was subsequently transferred, through an attorney 
of Respondent-Sultan Ahmed, which attorney also is a cousin of 
petitioner Maqbool Ahmed Lehri. Furthermore, as noted earlier, the 
land was purportedly sold to Respondent-Sultan Ahmed on 
26.4.2007, however, the above power of attorney was executed on 
17.4.2006, a year before the purported sale. The execution of the 
Power of Attorney clearly demonstrates strong confidence of the 
beneficiary that the land shall surely be allotted to Respondent-
Sultan Ahmed, otherwise there was no question of appointing an 
attorney to deal with something that did not exist. Furthermore, it 
seems that the power of attorney was obtained to secure the 
interest of the real beneficiaries. In the NAB reference, it has been 
alleged that Respondent-Sultan Ahmed, being a small time motor 
mechanic, had no funds to pay for the land and had in fact acted 
as a front man for the petitioner Maqbool Ahmed Lehri. Reference 
in this regard has been made to the statement recorded by 
respondent Sultan Ahmed before the learned High Court of 
Baluchistan in Constitution Petition No.332 of 2012. In this regard 
the impugned judgment has also noted, that the various 
signatures said to be inscribed by Respondent-Sultan Ahmed on 
the applications made by him to the Chief Minister from time to 
time, neither tallies with each other, nor with his admitted 
CP 1774, 1783 & 410-Q/14 
16
signature on record. However, the question whether Respondent-
Sultan Ahmed acted as a front man for the petitioner Maqbool 
Ahmed Lehri, and the other above noted issues ancillary thereto, 
can only be determined after recording of evidence by the NAB 
Court. 
22. 
 
In 
the 
case 
of 
Al-Shafeeq 
Housing 
Society, 
Hyderabad v. Pakistan Medical Association, Karachi and 5 
others, (1992 SC 113), where the questions of restoration of the 
respondent’s allotment and also of the legality and validity of the 
appellant’s allotment were involved. This Court, whilst observing 
that Government, or for that matter the Chief Minister had no 
power to either annul the respondent’s allotment or to make 
allotment to the appellant, which was so done in that case, 
repelled the objection to the maintainability of the petition before 
the High Court and held such questions to be a question 
pertaining to statutory duty and dismissed the appeal. In the 
preset case also, as can been seen from the above discussion, the 
statutory provisions have been violated, and in fact the allotment 
has been made in violation of the constitutional mandate also. The 
allotment in question being wholly illegal, incompetent and void 
has rightly been declared and treated by the learned Division 
Bench as such, and as a natural and legal consequence thereof 
has rightly ordered cancellation of the purported sale deeds of the 
land in favour of the subsequent lessees, being petitioners No.1 to 
3, in CP 1774/14. Further more since the land has been acquired 
for a public purpose i.e. construction of a bridge and is now 
reserved for expansion of the bridge constructed on a portion of the 
acquired land, cannot be leased/sold to any private individual, 
and/or for any private purpose/commercial venture or for any 
illegal and undue enrichment, such being the mandate of 
CP 1774, 1783 & 410-Q/14 
17
Baluchistan Land lease Policy 2000. Request of the petitioners in 
CPLA 410-Q of 2014 for an order directing allotment of the land to 
the said petitioners was thus rightly declined.   
23. 
 
In view of the foregoing, the petitions are dismissed 
and leave refused.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad the 
27th May 2015 
Aamir Sh. 
 
APPROVED FOR REPORTING 
