2015 PLP 1348 (SCMR)

IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, J.

Through these review petitions, the petitioner seek review of this Court's judgment dated 31-10-2013 passed in SMC No.11/2011 whereby the said SMC was disposed of with the following directions:-- "(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 dependents are declared to be illegally allotted and are 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. (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 Messrs 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 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 report regarding receipts and payments by the Foundation from the date of its creation till date. (8) 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 report shall be submitted by the Chairman NAB through the Registrar of this Court for the action taken by him within 90 days."

2. Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner Anjum Aqeel Khan in C.R.P. No. 309 of 2013 seeks review of the impugned judgment by contending that there are errors apparent on the face of record in the judgment under review which need to be corrected; that this Court in exercise of suo motu jurisdiction cannot side step and bypass the safeguards which are available to a party under the law in civil proceedings; that this Court during the pendency of the criminal proceedings could not make observations and record findings without recording of evidence as this would seriously prejudice the right of the petitioner in the criminal proceedings; that by means of the judgment under review, right to fair trial as envisaged under Article 10-A of the Constitution has been denied to the petitioner; that the petitioner cannot be declared as corrupt without recording of evidence as required under Qanun-e- Shahadat Order, 1984; that in the presence of conflicting reports by the various authorities and without conducting a land audit, the petitioner cannot be directed to provide 126 kanals of land; that the cost of the land was actually fixed by the head of the Police Foundation, which was accepted by the petitioner, rather he paid the extra amount; that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to confront and cross-examine the author of the report i.e. former M.D. National Police Foundation; that this Court cannot record finding of fact in exercise of suo moto jurisdiction; that this Court has not taken into consideration the fact that criminal proceedings against the petitioner had already been undertaken by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) in which he was declared innocent and in this view of the matter, the Reference could not have been sent to NAB against the petitioner; that exorbitant liability has been imposed on the petitioner, which is against the facts and circumstances of the present case.

3. Mr. Hamid Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners/ex-officials of National Police Foundation / Board of Directors in C.R.Ps. Nos. 310 to 312 and 349 of 2013 has contended that the officials had acted in good faith and the alleged irregularities and illegalities cannot be attributed to the petitioners; that the petitioners cannot be held guilty by solely relying upon the report of Mr. Zafar Ahmed Qureshi, former M.D. of the National Police Foundation; that the definition of 'charitable purpose' as appeared in Section 2 of the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890 is non-exhaustive; that the news reporter Mr. Rauf Kalasra, on whose report the suo motu action was taken, was not legally bound to appear or to file his affidavit as provided in the Supreme Court Rules; that even he was not cross-examined by the petitioners and in such circumstances his statement could not have been relied upon by this Court. He further added that due process of law has not been adopted and right to fair trial as provided under Article 10-A of the Constitution has also not been given to the petitioners; that the petitioners while discharging their duties have exercised their powers in the best interest of the Foundation for making the housing scheme successful; that the Constitution of the National Police Foundation does not restrict its Board of Directors from allotting more than one plot to any person; that there is no legal restriction or bar against allotment of plots by the Committee of Administration as a reward for good service by its employees who fell within the definition of beneficiaries or allotment of plots to the relatives of the employees of the NPF; that under section 18 of the NAB Ordinance, 1999, only the Chairman of NAB or the person duly authorized by him is empowered to take a decision regarding initiation of proceedings against anyone; that petitioners in the earlier investigation conducted by the FIA had been declared innocent by the Special Judge Central and holding them guilty amounts to violation of Article 13 of the Constitution which inter alia provides that a person could not be prosecuted or punished for the same offence twice and that the judgment under review is liable to be reviewed on the points mentioned above.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/allottees of the plots Syed Ali Zafar in C.R.Ps. Nos. 320, 321, 323 to 327, 348 and 378 of 2013 has submitted that the petitioners had purchased the plots from National Police Foundation about 25 years ago when the area was totally undeveloped and barren and in fact the Foundation was not in possession of any land; that in spite of such conditions the petitioners paid the market price for the plots in the hope that one day they will be able to live in a peaceful environment; that to determine whether the petitioners had purchased the plots below market price, as a first step an inquiry should have been conducted as to what was the market price of the land in question in the year 1989 or at the time when the same was purchased, which admittedly has not been done and in the absence of such an inquiry this Court could not have decided that the petitioners had obtained plots at cheaper rates; that the judgment under review is based on conjectures and assumptions and not on any direct or indirect evidence and the same is violative of Article 10A of the Constitution and the law laid down by this Court regarding due process of law. Regarding the issue whether the public or other family members of a police officer could purchase the plots, learned counsel contended that there is no such law in which an individual is stopped from owning property and the Court in coming to the conclusion that the family members of a police officer were not entitled to purchase the plots, had acted unlawfully. According to him, the only question was as to whether the market value was paid or not. Learned counsel further added that none of the ingredients which are sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution are present; that the schemes in which petitioners have purchased the plots at market price were not for the welfare of the serving or retired persons in the Police Force but those were projects launched by NPF for the purposes of sale to the public and generation of income therefrom and that it was the income from this project that was to be used for the welfare of the serving and retired persons and that there was no restriction whatsoever in the terms and conditions that a family member of a police officer cannot apply for purchasing the plot in her own name.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in C.R.Ps. Nos. 361, 362, 364 to 366, 373 of 2013 and 53 and 54 of 2014 and C.M.A. No.1059 of 2014 and petitioner in person in C.R.P. No. 377 of 2013 and learned counsel for the applicants in C.M.As. Nos. 2334, 2338, 2343, 2347 and 2351 of 2014 have made almost similar prayers. According to them they were bona fide purchasers for consideration and their allotment has been cancelled without notice; that the petitioners/applicants were neither heard nor were made party; that the petitioners have unblemished service record and they have never misused or have ever transgressed their authority; that the allotment of plots in their favour was through a transparent and lawful manner and was in accordance with the relevant rules which were in vogue that time and that after a considerable long period in a suo motu jurisdiction, the legality of the allotment cannot be disputed.

6. The case of the petitioners in other review petitions i.e. C.R.Ps. Nos. 354 to 360, 363, 367 to 372, 374 to 376 of 2013, 31 to 33, 49 and 50 to 52 of 2014 and applicants in C.M.As. Nos. 1063 and 2353 of 2014 who are subsequent purchasers is that they are bona fide purchasers for consideration after having undergone a thorough process of due verification and have paid market value without getting involved in any act of omission or commission for undue enrichment or malicious gain; that they have been condemned unheard; that they have acted in good faith; that in the absence of there being any ill-gotten gain, the petitioners/applicants have vested right that their proprietary rights in the properties with constructions thereon, if any, should be protected; that the judgment under review is silent about the fixation of the fair market prices presently prevailing; that if at all the amount is to be paid, then that must be paid by the original allottees who are established to have gained unlawfully or are the beneficiaries of undue enrichment. In view of the above, they have prayed for setting aside of the judgment under review.

7. Learned counsel for the National Police Foundation, on the other hand, has inter alia contended that the Housing Schemes were established on commercial basis; that it was not mentioned anywhere in the application form that other family members cannot apply; that the schemes were launched to generate funds as the Foundation was facing acute shortage of funds.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants as also learned counsel for the NPF and have deeply considered the submissions made by them.

9. It is on record that National Police Foundation has been established in the year 1975 under Charitable Endowment Act, 1890. The main purpose for its establishment was to provide relief to the poor police officials throughout the country in the shape of medical, education, one time grant, artificial limbs, scholarships, dowry, vocational training centres etc. Word 'charitable purpose' has been defined in section 2 of the Act which 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. As such the benefit could be given only to poor who are entitled to have share from charity. No one has argued that the NPF was not a charitable institution. We have noticed that the Committee of Administration of the NPF 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 police officials of all over the country. The NPF has deviated from the basic purpose of charitable for which it was established. So far as the question as to whether the NPF was authorized to launch private housing schemes for the general public is concerned, it has been discussed at length in the main judgment that the Foundation could do so only for the help of beneficiaries but not for private persons or officers/officials of other departments under the garb of beneficiaries. Establishment and launching of private housing schemes for the general public is against the very object and aim of the Foundation. We have noted that only the influential persons have gotten the benefit of the schemes launched by the Foundation and the needy poor police officials have been deprived of their rights. The argument that the schemes were launched only to generate funds is a belated argument just to save the skin. Such valuable plots have been squandered only to favour the higher police officers and other persons as also to their family members who were not at all entitled to the allotment of plots. Even the balloting was not done. If generation of funds was the main purpose, then the plots should have to be sold in open market so as to get maximum price. It was for these reasons that we have observed in the main judgment that "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." We had also taken note of the fact that no criterion for allotment of plots was made and had observed in para 38 of the impugned judgment as under:- "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." It is correct that plots could be allotted to the officials/employees by the Committee of Administration but in all the process impartiality should be the most important factor, which as discussed above, was unfortunately found lacking in the instant process, which led to initiation of suo motu proceedings. In the main judgment, a list has been provided according to which more than one plot has been allotted to several police and government officials as also to other civilians. Some of the families were allotted five plots and some were allotted more than ten plots. In one case, an NPF employee was allotted 8 plots by the Foundation. There is a long list of police officials and even others who got two or more than two plots. Not only this, several plots have been allotted to family members of police officials. Some of the plots were even given at the rate of Rs.100. If for the sake of arguments we admit that the schemes were launched only to generate funds, then why several plots were allotted on a cheaper price of Rs.100. This clearly establishes that there was some mala fide on the part of the Foundation. For ready reference the list is reproduced as under:- Sr. No. Name and Designation Plot No. and Size Scheme Date of Allotment Cost of Land by NPF

1. Mr. Abdul Qadir Haye, I.G. 379(50 x 90) E-11 6-4-2003 1130000.00

2. Mrs. Shaheen Qadir Haye, wife of Abudl Qadir Haye 380(50 x 90) E-11 9-3-2002 1130000.00

3. Mr. Abdur Razaque, I.G. 480(50 x 90) E-11 4-7-1998 1130100.00

4. Mrs. Farhat Razzaque, wife of Mr. Abdur Razzaque 52(50 x 90) E-11 4-7-1998 565100.00

5. Mr. Afzal Ali Shigri, I.G. 558(50 x 90) E-11 31-7-2002 463933.00

6. Mrs. Mahlaqa Shigri, wife of Afzal Ali Shigri 557(50 x 90) E-11 3-9-2001 1130100.00

7. Miss Amna Rizvi, daughter of Afzal Ali Shigri 556(50 x 90) E-11 3-9-2001 1130100.00

8. Miss Mahlaiqa Shigri, wife of Afzal Ali Shigri 1027-B(35 x 65) O-9 4-11-2004 250100.00

9. Miss Amna Shigri, dauthger of Afzal Ali Shigri 1026-B(35 x 65) O-9 4-11-2004 250100.00

10. Mrs. Gulzhan Iftikhar, wife of Iftikhar Rasheed, I.G. 1011(50 x 90) E-11 11-11-2002 1575100.00

11. Miss Sheze Iftikhar, daughter of Iftikhar Rasheed, I.G. E-11 10-5-2002 1575100.00

12. Mr. Kaleem Iman, I.G. 661(50 x 90) E-11 14-2-2002 1690100.00

13. Mrs. Ayusha Hanif wife of Kaleem Imam, I.G. 1041(50 x 90) E-11 22-4-2003 1690100.00

14. Mr. Muhammad Rafique Haider, I.G. 485(50 x 90) E-11 4-7-1988 1130100.00

15. Mrs. Nabeela Rafique Haider 486(50 x 90) E-11 4-7-1998 1130100.00

16. Rana Altaf Majeed, I.G. 470(50 x 90) E-11 4-7-1998 1200600.00

17. Mrs. Salwa Rana 469(50 x 90) E-11 4-7-1998 1130100.00

18. Saiyed Mohib Asad, I.G. 643-C(50 x 90) E-11 4-7-1998 393433.00

19. Mrs. Nigar Mohib, wife of Saiyed Mohib Asad, I.C. 722(50 x 90) E-11 22-8-2002 1575100.00

20. Syed Abid Abbas, DSP 251(35 x 65) E-11 4-7-1998 565100.00

21. Mrs. Romana Abid, wife of Abid Abbas, DSP 774(35 x 65) E-11 11-11-2002 787600.00

22. Mrs. Romana Abid, wife of Abid Abbas, DSP 430-X(50 x 90) O-9 15-4-2003 500100.00

23. Syed Abid Abbas, DSP 82(12 x 20) O-9 8-12-2001 56100.00

24. Mr. Haq Nawaz Kiani, SP 807(35 x 65) E-11 14-2-2002 787600.00

25. Mrs. Pakeeza Nawaz Kiani, wife of Haq Nawaz Kiani, SP 674(50 x 90) E-11 14-2-2002 1575100.00

26. Miss Hina Nawaz, daughter of Haq Nawaz Kiani, SP 540(50 x 90) E-11 4-7-1998 1130100.00

27. Mr. Behram Tariq, I.G. 29(50 x 90) E-11 4-7-1998 1130100.00

28. Mrs. Farida Sultana, wife of Behram Tariq, I.G. 29(50 x 90) E-11 4-7-1998 1130100.00

29. Ch. Muhammad Akmal, Inspector 546(50 x 90) E-11 4-7-1998 1130100.00

30. Mrs. Farzana Akmal, wife of Ch. Muhammad Akmal, Inspector 545(50 x 90) E-11 4-7-1998 1130100.00

31. Mr. Wajahat Latif, I.G. 476(50 x 90) E-11 4-7-1998 1200600.00

32. Mr. Ahmad Latif, Banker, son of Wajahat Latif 477(50 x 90) E-11 4-7-1998 1200600.00

33. Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Malik, I.G. 632-F(50 x 90) E-11 14-2-2002 1575100.00

34. Mrs. Surriya Nawaz, wife of Muhammad Nawaz Malik 632-G(50 x 90) E-11 20-2-2002 1575100.00

35. Mr. Naseer Ali, Banker, son of Muhammad Nawaz Malik 2112-A(50 x 90) O-9 11-9-2003 500100.00

36. Mr. Arif Hussain, Accountant, son of Muhammad Nawaz Malik 2093-T(50 x 90) O-9 11-9-2003 500100.00

37. Mr. Manzoor Ahmad, I.G. 669 Sub-1068 (50 x 90) E-11 1-12-1999 1200600.00

38. Mr. Qaisar Sultana, wife of Manzoor Ahmed 670(50 x 90) E-11 1-12-1999 1130100.00

39. Ch. Manzoor Ahmad, I.G. 400-B(35 x 65) O-9 7-10-2011 251000.00

40. Mr. Zaheed Waheed Butt, Brig. 676(50 x 90) E-11 29-3-2002 1575100.00

41. Mrs. Zille Huma Dar, wife of Zahid Waheed Butt, Brig. 645(35 x 65) E-11 29-3-2002 105400.00

42. Mr. Muhammad Afzal Rana, Lt. Col. 708(50 x 90) E-11 20-2-2002 787600.00 43 Miss Sadia Afzal Rana, daughter of Muhammad Afzal Rana 1035(50 x 90) E-11 11-11-2002 1500350.00

44. Agha Baqir Ali, Foreign Service Officer 871(50 x 90) O-9 4-4-1991 240100.00

45. Agha Sibtain Raza son of Agha Baqir Ali 873(50 x 90) O-9 4-4-1991 240100.00

46. Mr. Amjad Bashir son of Mr. Muhammad Bashir 1845-V(50 x 90) O-9 26-2-2005 958100.00

47. Mian Imtiaz Bashir son of Mr. Muhammad Bashir 1845-H(50 x 90) O-9 25-2-2005 500100.00

48. Mr. Shaukat Aziz, Ex-Prime Minister 411(50 x 90) E-11 20-8-2002 1105106.00

49. Mr. Shaukat Aziz, Ex-Prime Minister 357(50 x 90) O-9 7-10-1990 245100.00

50. Mrs. Rukhsana Aziz wife of Shaukat Aziz, Ex-Prime Minister 358(50 x 90) O-9 7-10-1990 245100.00

51. Mr. Israr Ahmed, I.G. 594(50 x 90) O-9 22-10-1990 245100.00

52. Mr. Israr Ahmed, I.G. 286(50 x 90) E-11 4-7-1998 1105100.00

53. Mrs. Maimoona Israr wife of Israr Ahmed 593(50 x 90) O-9 22-10-1990 240100.00

54. Mr. Sagheer Ahmed, PIA 143(40 x 60) O-9 10-1-2005 1066880.00

55. Mr. Shaista Sagheer wife of Sagheer Ahmad 76(12 x 20) O-9 19-12-2002 106780.00

56. Malik Nazir Ahmad, Banker 34(15 x 30) O-9 28-12-1999 104100.00

57. Mr. Nasim Akhtar Naz wife of Malik Nazir Ahmad 33(15 x 30) O-9 28-12-1999 104100.00

58. Syed Farzana Hussain wife of Syed Shaukat Hussain 130(15 x 30) O-9 28-10-2002 200100.00

59. Syeda Naureen Batool daughter of Syed Shoukat Hussain 122(15 x 30) O-9 28-10-2002 200100.00

60. Mr. Sultan Azam Temori, I.G. 718(50 x 90) E-11 14-2-2002 1665100.00

61. Mr. Sultan Azam Temuri, DIG 88(12 x 20) O-9 14-12-2001 56367.00

62. Mr. Rabia Temuri wife of Sultan Azam Temuri 160(15 x 30) O-9 4-11-2003 200100.00

63. Mr. Siraj Din, Businessman son of Muhammad Din 52(12 x 20) O-9 18-7-2002 53434.00

64. Mr. Naik Bakht son of Muhammad Din 53(12 x 20) O-9 18-7-2002 43434.00

65. Mrs. Bilqees Akhtar wife of Ghulam Ali 121(15 x 30) O-9 18-10-2002 200100.00

66. Miss Batool Akhtar daughter of Ghulam Ali 113(15 x 30) O-9 18-10-2002 200100.00

67. Mr. Ahsan-ul-Haq son of Abdul Aziz 109(15 x 30) O-9 19-12-2002 200100.00

68. Mr. Rizwan-ul-Haq son of Abdul Aiz 108(15 x 30) O-9 19-12-2002 200100.00

69. Mr. Arif Qayum, Businessman 148(15 x 30) O-9 17-8-2011 200100.00

70. Mrs. Najma Arif wife of Arif Qayyum 147(15 x 30) O-9 18-6-2003 200100.00

71. Mr. Humayoun Javaid, (R) Director FIA 184(12 x 20) O-9 22-2-2010 1491000.00

72. Mr. Hamayoun Javaid, (R) Director FIA 185(12 x 20) O-9 22-2-2010 1491000.00

73. Mr. Fazal Mehmood Malik, Businessman 187(12 x 20) O-9 22-2-2010 1521000.00

74. Mr. Fazal Mehmood Malik, Businessman 188(12 x 20) O-9 22-2-2010 1521000.00

75. Mr. Zaheer Mahmood, Businessman son of Mahmood Khan 2093-B(50 x 90) O-9 8-3-2003 100.00

76. Mr. Mudasser Sheraz son of Mehmood Khan 2093-C(50 x 90) O-9 8-3-2003 100.00

77. Mrs. Ghulam Sughra wife of Mr. Muhammad Bashir Shakir, Captain 119-K(50 x 90) O-9 31-3-2003 500100.00

78. Mr. Jawad Bashir son of Muahmmad Bashir Shakir 119-L(50 x 90) O-9 31-3-2003 500100.00

79. Mrs. Zahida Parveen wife of Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad 119-G(50 x 90) O-9 1-4-2003 500100.00

80. Miss Zehra Imtiaz daughter of Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad 119-H(50 x 90) O-9 1-4-2003 500100.00

81. Syed Muhammad Shahwaze Abbas Sherazi son of Syed Safeer Hussain Shah Shrazi, DSP 698-L(50 x 90) O-9 25-2-2003 100.00

82. Syedia Saffia Kazmi wife of Syed Safeer Hussain Shah Sherazi, DSP 698-N(50 x 90) O-9 25-2-2003 100.00

83. Syed Ibn-e-Ali Rizvi son of Syed Sardar Ali Shah 163-H(50 x 90) O-9 1-3-2003 450100.00

84. Mrs. Narjis Batool Kazi, Doctor wife of Syed Ibn-e-Ali Rizvi 163-G(50 x 90) O-9 1-3-2003 450100.00

85. Mr. Jehangir Akhtar son of Noor Muhammad 400-M(50 x 90) O-9 31-3-2003 500100.00

86. Mr. Tanveer Akhtar, Businessman son of Noor Muhammad 400-N(50 x 90) O-9 31-3-2003 500100.00

87. Mr. Babar Mumtaz, DSP 450-K(50 x 90) O-9 31-3-2003 500100.00

88. Mr. Amir Mumtaz son of Sardar Mumtaz Ali Khan 450-L(50 x 90) O-9 31-3-2003 500100.00

89. Mr. Muhammad Farhan Ghauri son of Muhammad Sharif Ijaz Ghauri 99-D(50 x 90) O-9 27-1-2004 337500.00

90. Mr. Muhammad Faisal Ghauri son of Muhammad Sharif Ijaz Ghauri 99-F(50 x 90) O-9 27-1-2004 337500.00

91. Mr. Akhtar Mahmud, Businessman son of Ch. Khuda Dad Khan 2150(50 x 90) O-9 16-9-2002 450100.00

92. Mrs. Naila Akhtar wife of Akhtar Mahmud 2151(50 x 90) O-9 16-9-2002 450100.00

93. Mr. Muhammad Afzal Khan, S.J. (R) 2096(50 x 90) O-9 4-9-2002 450100.00

94. Miss Atika Khan daughter of Muhammad Afzal Khan 2093(50 x 90) O-9 4-9-2002 450100.00

95. Mr. Mehmood Farooq Khan, NRSP son of Muhammad Akbar Khan 2105(50 x 90) O-9 15-6-2001 450100.00

96. Mr. Masood Akbar, NRSP son of Muhammad Akbar Khan 2106 O-9 15-6-2001 450100.00

97. Mr. Abdul Sattar, Businessman son of Abdul Ghafoor 451-R(50 x 90) O-9 1-4-2003 100.00

98. Mrs. Shafqat Sattar wife of Abdul Sattar 451-U O-9 1-4-2003 100.00

99. Mr. Muhammad Ahsan Shahzad son of Abdul Sattar 451-T(50 x 90) O-9 1-4-2003 100.00

100. Mr. Arshad Munir son of Abdul Ghafoor 451-S(50 x 90) O-9 1-4-2003 100.00

101. Mr. Tayyab Aziz, Businessman son of Abdul Aziz 451-P(50 x 90) O-9 1-4-2003 100.00

102. Mrs. Rukhsana Tayyab wife of Tayyab Aziz 451-N (50 x 90) O-9 1-4-2003 100.00

103. Hafiz S.d. Jamy, IG (Ex-MD NPF) 446 (50 x 90) E-11 4-7-1998 1188920.00

104. Mr. Hassan Naveed Jamy, Engineer son of Hafiz S.d. Jamy 255 (50 x 90) O-9 10-10-1990 240100.00

105. Mr. Gul Najam Jamy, Govt. Service son of Hafiz S.d. Jamy 813 (50 x 90) 0-9 11-10-1990 245100.00

106. Mr. I.M. Mohsin, I.G. 672 (50 x 90) E-11 14-2-2002 1130100.00

107. Mr. I.M. Mohsin, I.G. 884 (50 x 90) O-9 19-2-1991 245100.00

108. Mr. Rajeel Mohsin son of I.M. Mohsin 1021 (50 x 90) E-11 11-11-2002 1575100.00

109. Miss Nashita Mariyam daughter of I.M. Mohsin 217-A(50 x 90) O-9 17-11-1992 280100.00

110. Mr. Usman Amin Mian son of Mian Muhammad Amin (I.G.) Ex-MD NPF 457 (50 x 90) E-11 21-3-2000 1200600.00

111. Mr. Afnan Amin Mian, Engineer son of Mian Muhammad Amin (I.G.) Ex-MD NPF 606 (50 x 90) E-11 21-3-2000 1130100.00

112. Dr. Sikandar Amin Mian, Director son of Mian Muhammad Amin (I.G.) Ex-MD NPF 605 (50 x 90) 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 (50 x 90) E-11 4-7-1998 1200600.00

114. Dr. Naila Kamran daughter of Mian Muhammad Amin (I.G.) Ex-MD NPF 542 (50 x 90) 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 (50 x 90) 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 4-7-1998 1132100.00

118. Mrs. Hina Asher Khan daughter of 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. Mrs. Aisha Khanum wife of Umar Alam Khan 5 (12 x 20) O-9 1-4-2001 56100.00

121. Mr. Sikandar Hayat Shaheen, DIG 511 (50 x 90) E-11 28-3-2002 580100.00

122. Mrs. Riffat Shaheen wife of Sikandar Hayat Shaheen 582 (50 x 90) E-11 4-7-1998 1130100.00

123. Miss Fatima Shaheen daughter of Sikandar Hayat Shaheen 1273 (50 x 90) O-9 17-6-2002 450100.00

124. Dr. Amina Shaheen (Lady Doctor) daughter of Sikandar Hayat Shaheen 400-B (50 x 90) O-9 17-6-2002 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 30-3-2002 516766.00

127. Mr. Abdul Mateen Kamran, Businessman son of Abdul Hannan 604 (50 x 90) E-11 4-12-2002 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 90) O-9 14-5-2003 777877.00

130. Mr. Faisal Hannan, Businessman son of Abdul Hannan 136 (50 x 70) O-9 14-5-2003 77877.00

131. Mr. Umar Hannan son of Abdul Hannan 135 (50 x 70) O-9 14-5-2003 777877.00

132. Miss Aisha Hannan daughter of Abdul Hannan 147 (50 x 70) O-9 14-5-2003 777877.00

133. Mrs. Shahida Nasreen wife of Khuda Bukhsh 138 (50 x 70) (purchased) O-9 13-5-2003 777877.00

134. Mrs. Soban Bi wife of Khuda Bukhsh 142 (40 x 60) O-9 7-1-2005 1066780.00

135. Mrs. Shahida Nasreen wife of Khuda Bukhsh 752 (50 x 90) (purchased) O-9 7-2-1991 240100.00

136. Mrs. Shahida Nasreen wife of Khuda Buksh 1074 (35 x 65) O-9 7-2-1991 122600.00

137. Mr. Khuda Bukhsh Ex-DDH/NPF 149 (50 x 70) O-9 13-5-2003 777877.00

138. Mrs. Shahida Nasreen wife of Khuda Bukhsh 124 (15 x 30) O-9 13-1-2003 200100.00

139. Mr. Khuda Bakhsh Ex-DDH/NPF 426 (50 x 90) E-11 4-7-1998 541766.00

140. Mr. Khuda Bakhsh Ex-DDH/NPF 513 (50 x 90) E-11 4-7-1998 1025575.00

141. Mr. Asad-ur-Rehman son of Khuda Bukhsh 409-A (50 x 90) E-11 5-9-2003 1575100.00

142. Mr. Khuda Bakhsh Ex-DDH/NPF 212 (35 x 65) E-11 (Member-ship) 4-7-1998 565100.00

143. Miss Nasira Naureen daughter of Khuda Bukhsh 644 (50 x 90) E-11 (Purchased) 21-2-2003 2871300.00

144. Mr. Khuda Bakhsh, Ex-DDH/NPF 211 (35 x 65) E-11 (Member-ship) 4-7-1998 565100.00

145. Mr. Muhammad Zaman 138 (15 x 30) O-9 27-5-2003 200100.00

146. Mr. Muhammad Zaman Ex-Site Engineer/NPF 298 (25 x 45) O-9 2-8-2002 112600.00

147. Mr. Muhammad Zaman Ex-Site Engineer/NPF 303 (35 x 65) E-11 4-7-1998 600350.00

148. Mr. Nayyar Rafat wife of Syed Rafat Mustafa 69 (50 x 90) E-11 4-7-1998 1130100.00

149. Syed Rafat Mustafa Ex-DD/B&A 510 (50 x 90) E-11 28-3-2002 516767.00

150. Mrs. Bibi Hanifa wife of Mumtaz Ellahi 100 (35 x 65) E-11 4-7-1998 600350.00

151. Mr. Mumtaz Ellahi Ex-PSO to MD/NPF 632-B (50 x 90) E-11 4-7-1998 1130100.00

152. Mr. Mumtaz Ellahi Ex-PSO to MD/NPF 45 (35 x 65) E-11 4-7-1998 565100.00

153. Mr. Abdul Jamal Khan, DF/NPF 514 (50 x 90) E-11 28-3-2002 516766.00

154. Mr. Zarina Khan daughter of 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 4-7-1998 552600.00

156. Mrs. Naseem Akhtar wife of Muhammad Khan 357 (35 x 65) E-11 4-7-1998 552600.00

10. The above list clearly proves that the Management of the NPF have allotted plots to the police officials not only over and above their entitlement but certain civilians of their choice as well as military officials have been allotted plots, who even do not fall within the definition of the beneficiaries as discussed earlier. Even the possibility cannot be ruled out that the officials sitting at the helm of affairs in the NPF have not provided the complete list and have concealed many of other identical cases. So far as the argument of learned counsel that none of the ingredients for the exercise of suo motu jurisdiction by this Court are present in these proceedings is concerned, we have found that it is a classic case of public importance where loot sale of plots was going on in the name of generation of funds depriving the deserving poor police officials and the same squarely fell within the ambit of Article 184(3) of the Constitution. This Court has full powers to take suo motu action in such like cases of public importance.

11. So far as the case of Anjum Aqeel Khan is concerned, during the pendency of the proceedings at the time of hearing of S.M.C. No.11 of 2011, the matter was inquired into by Mr. Zafar Ahmed Qureshi, Ex-M.D. of NPF. In the said inquiry not only Anjum Aqeel Khan was associated but the concerned officials of the NPF were also associated. Anjum Aqeel Khan not only admitted lapses on his part but also entered into agreements with the Foundation so as to make the loss good. These agreements are on record and are reproduced in the main judgment. If he had not done any wrong or he was not involved, then why he admitted his lapses and entered into agreements with the Foundation. Even learned counsel for Anjum Aqeel Khan at the time of hearing of main case, in his C.M.A. bearing No. 3742 of 2013 while summing up his arguments had also stated that Anjum Aqeel Khan is ready and willing to abide by the terms of the settlement agreement signed by him with the NPF. Due to this reason, we had directed Chairman NAB to initiate proceedings against the delinquent persons as also against Anjum Aqeel Khan. One of the arguments raised by learned counsel was that Mr. Rauf Kalasra (journalist) on whose report the suo motu action was taken was not legally entitled to appear or to file his affidavit. However, this argument is misconceived. He had appeared at the asking of the Court in order to do complete justice and the impugned judgment was not passed only on his statement. It was the matter of great public importance, which compelled this Court to pass the impugned judgment. So far as the argument raised that under section 18 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, only the Chairman NAB or the person duly authorized by him is empowered to take a decision regarding initiation of proceedings against anyone is concerned, it is stated that this Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution has very vast powers and if this Court considers that a question of public importance with reference to the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by the Constitution is involved, it has jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders. In Muhammad Yasin v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment Division (PLD 2012 SC 132) petitioner filed a direct petition before this Court assailing appointment of respondent as Chairman OGRA. This Court declared the appointment of respondent as void ab initio and directed the NAB to proceed in the matter of serious allegations enumerated in the Constitution petition including those enumerated in the judgment and the conduct of State functionaries who were engaged in the process of selection of respondent as Chairman OGRA. This Court in several other cases like Rental power case, Hajj scam and Punjab Bank case had sent the matters to NAB. In Ashfaque Ahmed v. National Accountability Bureau through Chairman (PLD 2014 Quetta 109) petitioner was civil servant who was found involved in embezzlement and the Service Tribunal had referred the matter to NAB for initiation of proceedings. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Balochistan High Court with the contention that cognizance of any offence could only be taken on a reference made by the Chairman NAB and as such proceedings initiated on the directions of Service Tribunal were coram non judice. The learned High Court has held that anybody or any authority could inform the NAB that a person was involved in an offence and such information could be termed as complaint and that NAB authorities could initiate proceedings against a person on its own accord, only on coming to know about an offence from any source, including a reference received from government or upon receipt of a complaint. Such information could also be gathered from a judgment or order of Tribunal or Court, forming basis to initiate proceedings by the Chairman NAB on its own accord. One of the points raised by learned counsel was that the impugned judgment amounts to violation of Article 13 of the Constitution as vide the judgment the Board of Directors/employees have been held guilty. The apprehension of learned counsel is misconceived. We have not declared any person as guilty but have only referred the matter to NAB to investigate the matter fairly, justly and in accordance with law. If someone is not guilty, he should not have any fear in his mind and in the facts and circumstances of this case no question of violation of Article 13 of the Constitution arises. However, it is made clear that all the observations made in these proceedings are tentative in nature and NAB or any other investigating agency will proceed against the delinquent persons strictly on merit without being influenced by any observations made in these proceedings.

12. We have noticed that at the time of hearing of main case, the case of the persons who have been allotted more than one plot was that they were dependents of the police officers. However, in these proceedings they have taken a different stance that there was no mention in the application form that the family member of a police officer could not purchase the plots and that they have purchased the plots in their own capacity. However, the NPF has admitted that they were beneficiaries. As we have discussed above, the main purpose for the establishment of NPF was to provide relief to the poor and deserving police officials of all over the country and not to only higher and influential persons as also to their families. The purpose could be justly and fairly met if only one plot was allotted to only deserving police officials, but unfortunately the same has not been done. All what has been done in the name of generation of funds and charity is nothing but a severe and gross illegality.

13. There are three categories of persons in this case. First, where the persons were allotted only one plot. There are further two sub categories in the first category. In first type police officers/officials or employees of the Foundation have been allotted only one plot each and in second type, civilians, bureaucrats, army personnels etc. have been allotted only one plot each. Second, where the persons were allotted more than one plot either in their names or in the names of their family members. Third, where the persons have purchased plots from the original allottees (subsequent allottees).

14. So far as the second category is concerned, for what has been discussed above, more than one plot allotted to any person and his family members shall stand cancelled. However, if they want to retain the plots, they can pay the market price of the plots, which shall be determined by the Commission, detail of which is given in the last paragraph of this judgment.

15. So far as first sub-category in the first category i.e. police officers and employees of Foundation who have been allotted only one plot is concerned, we are persuaded to hold that they can keep the plots. Though we have found several illegalities in the process of allotment of plots but in the interest of justice, we are not going to cancel their allotment. There is some justification for allotment of plots to them.

16. So far as second sub-category in the first category i.e. civilians, bureaucrats, army personnels etc. is concerned, they were not at all entitled for the allotment of plots. Hence their allotment is cancelled. However, if they want to retain the plots, they can pay the market price thereof, which shall be determined by the Commission. The other person(s) who had been allotted only one plot and subsequently they have transferred it in the name of their family members also fall in this category.

17. However, so far as the subsequent purchasers/bona fide purchasers are concerned, it would be harsh if their plots are cancelled. Many of them have built houses. After a passage of more than 10 years, depriving them of the plots and the houses constructed thereon will be a grave miscarriage of justice. They have acted in good faith and they are lawful owners in possession of the plots and the market value of the property at present has reached a stage mainly on account of the development and construction by them. They have purchased the plots from the original allottees after having undergone a thorough process of due verification and paid the market price prevailing at that time. If the original allottees had not turned up or had not fulfilled their obligations, the bona fide purchasers cannot be attributed any mala fide. If at all, any amount is to be paid, that should be paid by the original allottees, who are established to have gained unlawfully or who are the beneficiaries of undue enrichment.

18. Learned counsel for the petitioners in the review petitions as also C.M.As. filed by Anjum Aqeel Khan and the persons who were allotted more than one plot either in their name or their family members have tried to reargue the case, which cannot be allowed in review jurisdiction. Same is the case with the petitioners/applicants who were allotted only one plot but without any entitlement i.e. civilians, bureaucrats, army personnels etc. As such the review petitions as also C.M.As. filed by Anjum Aqeel Khan and the persons who were allotted more than one plot as also the petitioners/applicants who were allotted only one plot but without any entitlement i.e. civilians, bureaucrats, army personnels etc are dismissed. However, we have observed that there is strong case of bona fide purchasers/subsequent allottees. Consequently, the review petitions as also C.M.As. filed by the bona fide purchasers/subsequent allottees as also the persons who were allotted only one plot i.e. police officers/officials and employees of Foundation are disposed of. It is directed that a Commission headed by Mr. Justice Moulvi Anwar-ul-Haq, former Judge of the Lahore High Court, be constituted, which shall determine the cases of subsequent purchasers/bona fide purchasers from the original allottees as to how can the market price of the plots be determined and recovery can be made from the original allottee of the difference between the allotment price and the market price of the land. The Commission shall submit its report, for our perusal in Chambers, within a period of two months after the date of formation. The Commission shall also consider the cases of persons who fall in the second sub-category of first category who have been allotted only one plot as to whether they had paid the market price or not and if not what will be the market price and what will be the mode of recovery. The Commission is further directed to consider the cases of persons who fall in the second category, detail of which has been given in para 14 above, as to what is the market price and how it can be recovered. The fee and other allowances of the Commission shall be determined by the NPF after discussing with the Hon'ble former Judge. The National Police Foundation is directed to provide full assistance/facilities to the Commission either in the shape of provision of office and staff or conveyance facility or in any other form and all the relevant record shall be made available to the Commission. The Commission will settle/propose the terms and steps as to how the judgment of this Court can be complied with. MWA/A-14/SC Order accordingly.