IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
 
 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR 
 
 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE MUSHIR ALAM 
 
 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE MAQBOOL BAQAR 
 
CIVIL PETITIONS NOS.1774, 1783 & 410-Q OF 2014 
(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.1774/14)  
 
 
(No.4 in CP No.1774/14) 
 
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 Respondent namely Sultan Ahmed 
(being respondent No.9 in the said petition) and its subsequent 
CP 1774, 1783 & 410-Q/14 
2 
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.  
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 
CP 1774, 1783 & 410-Q/14 
3 
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 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 
CP 1774, 1783 & 410-Q/14 
4 
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.  
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. 
CP 1774, 1783 & 410-Q/14 
5 
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 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 
CP 1774, 1783 & 410-Q/14 
6 
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 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.”  
 
CP 1774, 1783 & 410-Q/14 
7 
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. 
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 
CP 1774, 1783 & 410-Q/14 
8 
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 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:- 
CP 1774, 1783 & 410-Q/14 
9 
“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.” 
 
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 
CP 1774, 1783 & 410-Q/14 
10
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 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.”   
 
CP 1774, 1783 & 410-Q/14 
11
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 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 
CP 1774, 1783 & 410-Q/14 
12
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 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. 
CP 1774, 1783 & 410-Q/14 
13
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 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 
CP 1774, 1783 & 410-Q/14 
14
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 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 
CP 1774, 1783 & 410-Q/14 
15
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 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 others (PLD 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 
CP 1774, 1783 & 410-Q/14 
16
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 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. 
 
Since the purported sale of the subject land has been 
declared illegal and cancellation of such sale/allotment has been 
ordered as above, we would direct the QDA to refund the 
consideration amount in respect of the said transaction to Sultan 
Ahmed.    
24. 
 
In view of the foregoing, the petitions are dismissed and 
leave refused.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
Announced in open Court on __________  
at Islamabad  
 
Judge 
APPROVED FOR REPORTING 
Aamir Sh. 
