Widow moves SC against an advocate of LHC who had allegedly grabbed their property

[LahoreEstate]

Monday, May 25, 2009
By Arshad Dogar

LAHORE

A WIDOW and her sons filed an application in the Supreme Court of Pakistan on Saturday for action against an advocate of the Lahore High Court who had allegedly grabbed their property and was threatening them for more than five years.

Documentary proofs show that Lahore Police, the Punjab Bar Council and the Revenue Department had ‘succumbed’ to the influence of the accused after which the applicant had finally knocked the doors of the Supreme Court seeking justice and immediate relief.

The complainant widow and her sons have requested Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry to give them protection, take action against the accused advocate and the Revenue Department and help retrieve their property from the illegal possession of the accused.

The applicant, Shahida Shakoor, the widow of Abdul Shakoor and the mother of Abid Shakoor and Kashif Shakoor, in her application to the chief justice has said that her husband late Abdul Shakoor purchased land (1 kanal 14 marlas) under the Baynama (purchase deed) No 4820 Bahi NO 1, Jild No 195 Page No 182-183 on February 14, 1979. The said property was transferred under mutation (transfer) No 7022 on January 7, 1980, in the name of Abdul Shakoor. Abdul Shakoor died on June 8, 1982 after which the said property was transferred to his legal heirs, including the widow (applicant) under mutation No 16806 on November 30, 1982.

The Revenue Department demarcated the said property under Khasra Number 12434 on May 18, 1999 and it prepared a report and map of demarcation and Parcha Tafawat.

The complainant alleged in her application that accused Sarfraz Nawaz Malik advocate, resident of 95-C Abdalian Housing Society Lahore occupied land (3 kanal-6 marlas) under Khasra No 12435 adjacent to the applicant’s property on October 7, 2003. She had claimed that Sarfraz had also grabbed the property of two women, who had died earlier, by preparing fake documents.

Giving details about the illegal possession of property, the applicant alleged that the accused advocate had surpassed his Khasra No 12435 (Khatoni No 55) and occupied a piece of their land spread over 7 1/2 marlas from their Khasra No 12434 (Khatoni 921). The applicant stated that she had also conducted clarification of former demarcation through proper procedure on March 1, 2005 through Tehsildar/Consolidation Officer Niaz Baig in the presence of local police. In the clarification report, the officials concerned had demarcated the Khasra No 12434 and 12435 which had separated the property of applicant and the accused. But the accused advocate was still allegedly occupying their property (7 1/2 marlas) and he was not willing to give the possession of the complainant’s property.

The applicant has also alleged that Sarfraz was a criminal and he was ringleader of a land mafia. She substantiated her stance by providing a copy of an FIR No 198/06 registered at Old Anarkali Police Station under sections 382, 353,186, 147, 149 of PPC and 6, 7 of Anti-terrorism Act (ATA) on April 24, 2006. SHO Waneki Tarar District Hafizabad police Farooq Ahmad was the complainant of the FIR. He told Old Anarkali police that Sarfraz had manhandled them, ripped their uniforms and took away their cell phones and cash worth Rs 20,000 after they (officials) came out of the court of Syed Sajjad Hussain Shah on April 24, 2006 at around 9:30am.

Rehmat Ali, the duty officer of Anarkali police station, had confirmed that Sarfraz Nawaz Malik and his accomplices were proclaimed offenders (POs) of Register No 4 from Anti-terrorism Court in the Case No 198/06. He said that Sarfraz was wanted by police as he had manhandled and robbed police officials on court premises.

Shahida contended that whenever she and her sons had demanded the possession of their property from the accused, he and his accomplices had threatened them with life. The applicant said that the accused had also implicated them in fake cases to test their patience so that they withdraw the case.

She alleged that the advocate had also damaged her property and stopped her from visiting it. The applicant’s son, Abid Shakoor, told this correspondent that he also visited the ASP Chung Circle on May 5, 2005 for justice but to no avail. Abid said he had also filed a complaint against Sarfraz at the Punjab Bar Council on June 25, 2005 after paying challan fee but to no avail.

The complainant had also mentioned in the application that Sarfraz filed an application in the court of EDO-R for cancellation of clarification of demarcation on April 6, 2006. The advocate in para number 1 of his application himself had confessed that two parties had properties in two separate khasra numbers as his plot was situated in Khasra Number 12435 while Shahida Shakoor’s was in Khasra No 12434. When contacted, DDO-R Usman Ghani said that he could not comment on the issue before the decision of the court.

Abid had also alleged that the DDO-R had forwarded the case to the EDO-R under certain pressure without deciding the fate of any party on the application of Sarfraz. Abid alleged that gardawar Malik Iqbal of the Revenue Department had also been playing main role in denial of justice.

Shahida in her application has also mentioned that her son Abid Shakoor had filed an application at the office of Inspector General of Police, Punjab, on October 23, 2008 but police did not take action against the accused due to his influence. Police were also reluctant to arrest Sarfraz as a proclaimed offender.

A letter No 28732 dated 24.10.2008 was issued from the Punjab Inspector General of Police to the Lahore Senior Superintendent of Police Operations with the subject: Enquiry into the complaint of Abid Shakoor s/o Abdul Shakoor R/o 17-c, Model Town, Lahore. DIG Inspection and Vigilance Cell Ahsan Mehboob addressed the SSP Operations Lahore in the letter on behalf of the IGP and stated that on report submitted by the vigilance cell, the IGP has passed the following orders: - “SSP/Operations, Lahore to direct local SDPO/SHO to get the issue finalised from Revenue Department and as per decision of the Court of EDO-R Lahore. Further action of its implementation may also be taken”. The letter reads; you are requested to comply with the orders of the Punjab IGP and a compliance report be sent in a fortnight for perusal of the IGP.

The SSP Operations Lahore marked the application to SP Saddar and reminders were also sent (letter numbers 9504 dated 28.10.08, DSP Chung 10980 dated 29.10.08. SHO Sattukatla 750-5A-SK dated 02-11-08 and again to DSP Chung on 12-11-08).

The SSP Operations had also once mentioned in his letter to the SP Saddar division that the letter issued did not serve the purpose and there is need of a comprehensive report as per the directions of the IGP. Lahore Police continued exchanging these letters until March 19, 2009.

A letter No 9632 from SSP Operations Lahore was written to the DIG I&VC under the subject: Application from Abid Shakoor. The letter said that two parties were called in following the directions of the IGP and after hearing them it was discovered that the allegations levelled against the advocate in the application was not concerned with police as the matter was pertaining to the personal plot of the applicant and it was related to the Revenue Department. The letter also suggested that the applicant should move to Revenue Board for action. The applicant told this correspondent that Saddar Division Police had decided the issue ex-parte (one-sided) and he was never called by the police in the presence of the accused.

The victims also got orders of Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif at his open court and the application was forwarded to Revenue department but still to no avail.

Talking to The News, Sarfraz Nawaz Malik advocate said that he had not occupied any land of Shahida Shakoor. He said that he was residing with his family in 95-C Abdalian Housing Society, Lahore since 2003. He said the tussle between Abid and him was on demarcation. He was of the view that the demarcation conducted in 2005 was wrong and said that he had filed an application at the court of EDO-R which was still pending. To a question that he was a proclaimed offender and an application has been filed against him for suo moto action, Sarfraz said that he would not comment on it. He said he would not comment as this correspondent had become a party against him.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=179435