IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(REVIEW JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE NASIR-UL-MULK, HCJ 
MR. JUSTICE AMIR HANI MUSLIM 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY 
 
C.R.P. NOs. 309 TO 312, 320, 321, 323 TO 327, 348, 349, 
354 TO 356, 361, 362, 364 TO 366, 373, 377, 378, 357 To 
360, 363, 367 TO 372, 374 TO 376 OF 2013 AND 31 TO 33, 
49 TO 54 OF 2014 AND C.M.A. NOs. 1059, 1063, 2334, 
2338, 2343, 2347, 2351, 2353 OF 2014 IN C.R.P. NOs. NIL 
OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 AND C.M.A. NO. 1429 OF 
2015 IN C.R.P. NO. NIL OF 2015 IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 
(To review this Court’s judgment dated 31.10.2013 passed in Suo Moto Case No. 
11/2011) 
 
Anjum Aqeel Khan 
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 309/2013) 
 
Iftikhar Ahmed Khan 
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 310/2013) 
 
Laeeq Ahmed Khan 
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 311/2013) 
 
Khuda Bakhsh 
 
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 312/2013) 
 
Muhammad Rafiq Haider 
 
 
 
(In CRP 320/2013) 
 
Sikandar Hayat Shaheen 
 
 
 
(In CRP 321/2013) 
 
Syed Abid Abbas  
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 323/2013) 
 
Muhammad Arsahd Saeed 
 
 
 
(In CRP 324/2013) 
 
I.M. Mohsin 
 
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 325/2013) 
 
Abdul Qadir Haye 
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 326/2013) 
 
Wajahat Latif 
 
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 327/2013) 
 
Sultan Azam Temuri 
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 348/2013) 
 
Abdul Hannan 
 
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 349/2013) 
 
Tahir Awais 
 
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 354/2013) 
 
Ch. Tahir Sattar  
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 355/2013) 
 
Zakir Ali 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 356/2013) 
 
Miss Sadia Afzal Rana and another  
 
(In CRP 361/2013) 
 
Sardar Amir Mumtaz 
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 362/2013) 
 
Brig (R) Zahid Waheed Butt  
 
 
(In CRP 364/2013) 
 
Agha Baqir Ali and another  
 
 
(In CRP 365/2013) 
 
Agha Sibtain Raza 
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 366/2013) 
 
Amjad Bashir and others 
 
 
 
(In CRP 373/2013) 
 
Muhammad Afzal Khan 
 
 
 
(In CRP 377/2013) 
 
Israr Ahmed 
 
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 378/2013) 
 
Saad Ullah Khan  
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 357/2013) 
 
Amjad Ayub Khan 
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 358/2013) 
 
Naib Khan  
 
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 359/2013) 
 
Khan Javed Iqbal  
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 360/2013) 
 
Ch. Talib Hussain Warriach  
 
 
(In CRP 363/2013) 
 
Muhammad Anwar Javed Cheema etc 
 
(In CRP 367/2013) 
 
Muhammad Hassan Qureshi  
 
 
(In CRP 368/2013) 
 
Tauqeer Anwar Durrani and others  
 
(In CRP 369/2013) 
 
Muhammad Fayyaz 
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 370/2013) 
 
Alam Zaib Khan and others  
 
 
(In CRP 371/2013) 
 
C.R.P. NOs. 309 TO 312, 320, 321, 323 TO 327, 348, 349, 354 TO 356, 361, 362, 364 TO 366, 
373, 377, 378, 357 To 360, 363, 367 TO 372, 374 TO 376 OF 2013 AND 31 TO 33, 49 TO 54 OF 
2014 AND C.M.A. NOs. 1059, 1063, 2334, 2338, 2343, 2347, 2351, 2353 OF 2014 IN C.R.P. NOs. 
NIL OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 AND C.M.A. NO. 1429 OF 2015 IN C.R.P. NO. NIL OF 2015 
IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 
2
Samina Asmat  
 
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 372/2013) 
 
Dewan Muhammad Ziaur Rehman Farooqi 
 
(In CRP 374/2013) 
 
Mian Najam Sohail and others 
 
 
(In CRP 375/2013) 
 
Mrs. Yasmeen Nasser Mian  
 
 
(In CRP 376/2013) 
 
Ghulam Sughra  
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 31/2014) 
 
Jawad Bashir 
 
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 32/2014) 
Muhammad Hassan 
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 33/2014) 
Khawaja Abdul Haq Tahir 
 
 
 
(In CRP 49/2014) 
Muhammad Umer Khayam 
 
 
 
(In CRP 50/2014) 
Mohsin Shahzad  
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 51/2014) 
Asad ur Rehman  
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 52/2014) 
Mrs. Shahida Nasreen  
 
 
 
(In CRP 53/2014) 
Mst. Sooban Bi 
 
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 54/2014) 
Muhammad Zaman Shahid  
 
 
(In CMA 1059/2014) 
Imran Hussain 
 
 
 
 
 
(In CMA 1063/2014) 
Arif Hussain 
 
 
 
 
 
(In CMA 2334/2014) 
Naseer Ali  
 
 
 
 
 
(In CMA 2338/2014) 
Mrs. Farhat Razzaque  
 
 
 
(In CMA 2343/2014) 
Mrs. Nayyar Rafat 
 
 
 
 
(In CMA 2347/2014) 
Mrs. Surriya Nawaz 
 
 
 
 
(In CMA 2351/2014) 
Fasihur Rehman  
 
 
 
 
(In CMA 2353/2014) 
Mrs. Erum Fayyaz 
 
 
 
 
(In CMA 1429/2015) 
… Petitioners/Applicants 
VERSUS 
 
National Police Foundation through its M.D. etc 
(In all cases) 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioners: 
Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 309/2013) 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Hamid Khan, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
(In CRPs 310 to 312 & 349/2013) 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Zahid Nawaz Cheema, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Syed Ali Zafar, ASC 
 
 
 
 
(In CRPs 320, 321, 323, 324 to 327, 348 & 378/13) 
 
 
 
 
 
Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, ASC 
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 361/2013) 
 
 
 
 
 
Malik Waheed Anjum, ASC 
(In CRP 362/2013) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Malik Jawwad Khalid, ASC 
 
 
 
 
(In CRPs 355 & 373/2013 & CMA No. 1059/2014) 
 
 
 
 
 
Mian Abdul Rauf, ASC 
 
 
 
 
(In CRPs 356 to 360/2013 & CRPs 51 & 52/2014) 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Muhammad Aslam Ghumman, ASC 
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 363/2013) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Raja Inam Ameen Minhas, ASC 
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 364/2013) 
 
C.R.P. NOs. 309 TO 312, 320, 321, 323 TO 327, 348, 349, 354 TO 356, 361, 362, 364 TO 366, 
373, 377, 378, 357 To 360, 363, 367 TO 372, 374 TO 376 OF 2013 AND 31 TO 33, 49 TO 54 OF 
2014 AND C.M.A. NOs. 1059, 1063, 2334, 2338, 2343, 2347, 2351, 2353 OF 2014 IN C.R.P. NOs. 
NIL OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 AND C.M.A. NO. 1429 OF 2015 IN C.R.P. NO. NIL OF 2015 
IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 
3
 
 
 
 
Malik Ghulam Mustafa Kandwal, ASC 
 
 
 
 
(In CRPs 367 to 370, 375/2013 & CMA 1063/2014) 
 
 
 
 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
 
 
(In CRPs 371-372/2013) 
 
 
 
 
 
In person 
 
 
 
 
(In CRPs 376-377/2013) 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Shamshadullah Cheema, ASC 
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 33/2014) 
 
 
 
 
 
Sardar Muhammad Ghazi, ASC 
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 49/2014 & CMA 2353/2014) 
 
 
 
 
 
Sardar Muhammad Ashfaq Abbasi, ASC 
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 50/2014) 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Hashmat Ali Habib, ASC 
 
 
 
 
(In CMAs 2334, 2338, 2343, 2347, 2351/2014) 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Afnan Karim Kundi, ASC 
 
 
 
 
(In CRPs 365-366/2013) 
 
 
 
 
 
Ch. Naseer Ahmed Tahir, ASC 
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 354/2013) 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Muhammad Munir Paracha, ASC 
 
 
 
 
(In CRP 374/2013) 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Rehan ud Din Galra, ASC 
 
 
 
 
(In CRPs 53-54/2014) 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Farhat Nawaz Lodhi, ASC 
 
 
 
 
(In CRPs 31 & 32/2014) 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Siddiqui, ASC 
 
 
 
 
(In CMA 1429/2014) 
 
 
 
 
 
For the Respondents: Syed Zahid Hussain Bukhari, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Syed Asghar Hussain Sabzwari, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Dr. Aslam Khaki, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Raja Abdul Ghafoor, AOR 
 
Dates of Hearing:  
21/26/27/29.05.2014 & 06.04.2015 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, J.- Through these 
review petitions, the petitioners 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: -  
C.R.P. NOs. 309 TO 312, 320, 321, 323 TO 327, 348, 349, 354 TO 356, 361, 362, 364 TO 366, 
373, 377, 378, 357 To 360, 363, 367 TO 372, 374 TO 376 OF 2013 AND 31 TO 33, 49 TO 54 OF 
2014 AND C.M.A. NOs. 1059, 1063, 2334, 2338, 2343, 2347, 2351, 2353 OF 2014 IN C.R.P. NOs. 
NIL OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 AND C.M.A. NO. 1429 OF 2015 IN C.R.P. NO. NIL OF 2015 
IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 
4
“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 
C.R.P. NOs. 309 TO 312, 320, 321, 323 TO 327, 348, 349, 354 TO 356, 361, 362, 364 TO 366, 
373, 377, 378, 357 To 360, 363, 367 TO 372, 374 TO 376 OF 2013 AND 31 TO 33, 49 TO 54 OF 
2014 AND C.M.A. NOs. 1059, 1063, 2334, 2338, 2343, 2347, 2351, 2353 OF 2014 IN C.R.P. NOs. 
NIL OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 AND C.M.A. NO. 1429 OF 2015 IN C.R.P. NO. NIL OF 2015 
IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 
5
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 M/s 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 
C.R.P. NOs. 309 TO 312, 320, 321, 323 TO 327, 348, 349, 354 TO 356, 361, 362, 364 TO 366, 
373, 377, 378, 357 To 360, 363, 367 TO 372, 374 TO 376 OF 2013 AND 31 TO 33, 49 TO 54 OF 
2014 AND C.M.A. NOs. 1059, 1063, 2334, 2338, 2343, 2347, 2351, 2353 OF 2014 IN C.R.P. NOs. 
NIL OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 AND C.M.A. NO. 1429 OF 2015 IN C.R.P. NO. NIL OF 2015 
IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 
6
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 CRP No. 309/2013 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 
moto 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 Qanoon-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 
C.R.P. NOs. 309 TO 312, 320, 321, 323 TO 327, 348, 349, 354 TO 356, 361, 362, 364 TO 366, 
373, 377, 378, 357 To 360, 363, 367 TO 372, 374 TO 376 OF 2013 AND 31 TO 33, 49 TO 54 OF 
2014 AND C.M.A. NOs. 1059, 1063, 2334, 2338, 2343, 2347, 2351, 2353 OF 2014 IN C.R.P. NOs. 
NIL OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 AND C.M.A. NO. 1429 OF 2015 IN C.R.P. NO. NIL OF 2015 
IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 
7
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 CRP Nos. 310 to 312 & 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 moto 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 
C.R.P. NOs. 309 TO 312, 320, 321, 323 TO 327, 348, 349, 354 TO 356, 361, 362, 364 TO 366, 
373, 377, 378, 357 To 360, 363, 367 TO 372, 374 TO 376 OF 2013 AND 31 TO 33, 49 TO 54 OF 
2014 AND C.M.A. NOs. 1059, 1063, 2334, 2338, 2343, 2347, 2351, 2353 OF 2014 IN C.R.P. NOs. 
NIL OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 AND C.M.A. NO. 1429 OF 2015 IN C.R.P. NO. NIL OF 2015 
IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 
8
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 CRP Nos. 320, 321, 323 to 327, 348 & 
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 
C.R.P. NOs. 309 TO 312, 320, 321, 323 TO 327, 348, 349, 354 TO 356, 361, 362, 364 TO 366, 
373, 377, 378, 357 To 360, 363, 367 TO 372, 374 TO 376 OF 2013 AND 31 TO 33, 49 TO 54 OF 
2014 AND C.M.A. NOs. 1059, 1063, 2334, 2338, 2343, 2347, 2351, 2353 OF 2014 IN C.R.P. NOs. 
NIL OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 AND C.M.A. NO. 1429 OF 2015 IN C.R.P. NO. NIL OF 2015 
IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 
9
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 
C.R.P. NOs. 309 TO 312, 320, 321, 323 TO 327, 348, 349, 354 TO 356, 361, 362, 364 TO 366, 
373, 377, 378, 357 To 360, 363, 367 TO 372, 374 TO 376 OF 2013 AND 31 TO 33, 49 TO 54 OF 
2014 AND C.M.A. NOs. 1059, 1063, 2334, 2338, 2343, 2347, 2351, 2353 OF 2014 IN C.R.P. NOs. 
NIL OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 AND C.M.A. NO. 1429 OF 2015 IN C.R.P. NO. NIL OF 2015 
IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 
10
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 CRP Nos. 361, 
362, 364 to 366, 373 of 2013 & 53 & 54 of 2014 and CMA No. 
1059/2014 & petitioner in person in C.R.P. No. 377/2013 and 
learned counsel for the applicants in CMA Nos. 2334, 2338, 
2343, 2347 & 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 moto 
jurisdiction, the legality of the allotment cannot be disputed.   
6. 
 
The case of the petitioners in other review petitions 
i.e. CRP Nos. 354 to 360, 363, 367 to 372, 374 to 376 of 2013, 
31 to 33, 49 & 50 to 52 of 2014 and applicants in CMA Nos. 
1063 & 2353/2014 who are subsequent purchasers is that they 
C.R.P. NOs. 309 TO 312, 320, 321, 323 TO 327, 348, 349, 354 TO 356, 361, 362, 364 TO 366, 
373, 377, 378, 357 To 360, 363, 367 TO 372, 374 TO 376 OF 2013 AND 31 TO 33, 49 TO 54 OF 
2014 AND C.M.A. NOs. 1059, 1063, 2334, 2338, 2343, 2347, 2351, 2353 OF 2014 IN C.R.P. NOs. 
NIL OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 AND C.M.A. NO. 1429 OF 2015 IN C.R.P. NO. NIL OF 2015 
IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 
11
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.  
C.R.P. NOs. 309 TO 312, 320, 321, 323 TO 327, 348, 349, 354 TO 356, 361, 362, 364 TO 366, 
373, 377, 378, 357 To 360, 363, 367 TO 372, 374 TO 376 OF 2013 AND 31 TO 33, 49 TO 54 OF 
2014 AND C.M.A. NOs. 1059, 1063, 2334, 2338, 2343, 2347, 2351, 2353 OF 2014 IN C.R.P. NOs. 
NIL OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 AND C.M.A. NO. 1429 OF 2015 IN C.R.P. NO. NIL OF 2015 
IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 
12
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 of 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 
C.R.P. NOs. 309 TO 312, 320, 321, 323 TO 327, 348, 349, 354 TO 356, 361, 362, 364 TO 366, 
373, 377, 378, 357 To 360, 363, 367 TO 372, 374 TO 376 OF 2013 AND 31 TO 33, 49 TO 54 OF 
2014 AND C.M.A. NOs. 1059, 1063, 2334, 2338, 2343, 2347, 2351, 2353 OF 2014 IN C.R.P. NOs. 
NIL OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 AND C.M.A. NO. 1429 OF 2015 IN C.R.P. NO. NIL OF 2015 
IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 
13
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 right. 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 
C.R.P. NOs. 309 TO 312, 320, 321, 323 TO 327, 348, 349, 354 TO 356, 361, 362, 364 TO 366, 
373, 377, 378, 357 To 360, 363, 367 TO 372, 374 TO 376 OF 2013 AND 31 TO 33, 49 TO 54 OF 
2014 AND C.M.A. NOs. 1059, 1063, 2334, 2338, 2343, 2347, 2351, 2353 OF 2014 IN C.R.P. NOs. 
NIL OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 AND C.M.A. NO. 1429 OF 2015 IN C.R.P. NO. NIL OF 2015 
IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 
14
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 moto 
proceedings. In the main judgment, a list has been provided 
according to which more than one plot has been allotted to 
several police & 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:-  
Srl. 
No. 
Name & Designation 
Plot No. & 
Size 
Sche
me 
Date of 
Allotment 
Cost of 
Land by 
NPF 
1. 
Mr. Abdul Qadir Haye, 379(50x90) 
E-11 
6.4.2003 
1130000.00 
C.R.P. NOs. 309 TO 312, 320, 321, 323 TO 327, 348, 349, 354 TO 356, 361, 362, 364 TO 366, 
373, 377, 378, 357 To 360, 363, 367 TO 372, 374 TO 376 OF 2013 AND 31 TO 33, 49 TO 54 OF 
2014 AND C.M.A. NOs. 1059, 1063, 2334, 2338, 2343, 2347, 2351, 2353 OF 2014 IN C.R.P. NOs. 
NIL OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 AND C.M.A. NO. 1429 OF 2015 IN C.R.P. NO. NIL OF 2015 
IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 
15
I.G. 
2. 
Mrs. 
Shaheen Qadir 
Haye, wife of Abdul 
Qadir Haye 
380(50x90) 
E-11 
9.3.2002 
1130000.00 
3. 
Mr. Abdur Razzaque, 
I.G 
480(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
1130100.00 
4. 
Mrs. Farhat Razzaque, 
w/o 
Mr. 
Abdur 
Razzaque 
52(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
565100.00 
5. 
Mr. Afzal Ali Shigri, 
I.G. 
558(50x90) 
E-11 
31.7.2002 
463933.00 
6. 
Mrs. Mahlaqa Shigri, 
w/o Afzal Ali Shigri 
557(50x90) 
E-11 
3.9.2001 
1130100.00 
7. 
Miss Amna Rizvi, d/o 
Afzal Ali Shigri 
556(50x90) 
E-11 
3.9.2001 
1130100.00 
8. 
Miss Mahlaiqa Shigri, 
w/o Afzal Ali Shigri 
1027-B 
(35x65) 
O-9 
4.11.2004 
250100.00 
9. 
Mis amna Shigri, d/o 
Afzal Ali Shigri 
1026-
B(35x65) 
O-9 
4.11.2004 
250100.00 
10. 
Mrs. Gulshan Iftikhar, 
w/o Iftikhar Rasheed, 
I.G. 
1011(50x90) 
E-11 
11.11.2002 
1575100.00 
11. 
Miss 
Sheze 
Iftikhar, 
d/o Iftikhar Rasheed, 
I.G. 
 
E-11 
10.5.2002 
1575100.00 
12. 
Mr. Kaleem Iman, I.G. 
661(50x90) 
E-11 
14.2.2002 
1690100.00 
13. 
Mrs. Ayusha Hanif w/o 
Kaleem Imam, I.G. 
1041(50x90) 
E-11 
22.4.2003 
1690100.00 
14. 
Mr. 
Muhammad 
Rafique Haider, I.G. 
485(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1988 
1130100.00 
15. 
Mrs. Nabeela Rafique 
Haider 
486(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
1130100.00 
16. 
Rana Altaf Majeed, I.G. 
470(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
1200600.00 
17. 
Mrs. Salwa Rana 
469(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
1130100.00 
18. 
Saiyed 
Mohib 
Asad, 
I.G.  
643-C(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
393433.00 
19. 
Mrs. Nigar Mohib, wife 
of Saiyed Mohib Asad, 
I.G. 
722(50x90) 
E-11 
22.8.2002 
1575100.00 
20. 
Syed Abid Abbas, DSP 
251(35x65) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
565100.00 
21. 
Mrs. 
Romana 
Abid, 
w/o Abid Abbas, DSP 
774(35x65) 
E-11 
11.11.2002 
787600.00 
22. 
Mrs. 
Romana 
Abid, 
w/o Abid Abbas, DSP 
430-X(50x90) 
O-9 
15.4.2003 
500100.00 
23. 
Syed Abid Abbas, DSP 
82(12x20) 
O-9 
8.12.2001 
56100.00 
C.R.P. NOs. 309 TO 312, 320, 321, 323 TO 327, 348, 349, 354 TO 356, 361, 362, 364 TO 366, 
373, 377, 378, 357 To 360, 363, 367 TO 372, 374 TO 376 OF 2013 AND 31 TO 33, 49 TO 54 OF 
2014 AND C.M.A. NOs. 1059, 1063, 2334, 2338, 2343, 2347, 2351, 2353 OF 2014 IN C.R.P. NOs. 
NIL OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 AND C.M.A. NO. 1429 OF 2015 IN C.R.P. NO. NIL OF 2015 
IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 
16
24. 
Mr. Haq Nawaz Kiani, 
SP 
807(35x65) 
E-11 
14.2.2002 
787600.00 
25. 
Mrs. Pakeeza Nawaz 
Kiani, w/o Haq Nawaz 
Kiani, SP 
674(50x90) 
E-11 
14.2.2002 
1575100.00 
26. 
Miss Hina Nawaz, d/o 
Haq Nawaz Kiani, SP 
540(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
1130100.00 
27. 
Mr. Behram Tariq, I.G. 
29(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
1130100.00 
28. 
Mrs. Farida Sultana, 
w/o Behram Tariq, I.G. 
29(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
1130100.00 
29. 
Ch. 
Muhammad 
Akmal, Inspector 
546(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
1130100.00 
30. 
Mrs. Farzana Akmal, 
w/o Ch. Muhammad 
Akmal, Inspector 
545(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
1130100.00 
31. 
Mr. Wajahat Latif, I.G. 
476(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
1200600.00 
32. 
Mr. 
Ahmad 
Latif, 
Banker, s/o Wajahat 
Latif 
477(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
1200600.00 
33. 
Mr. Mohammad Nawaz 
Malik, I.G. 
632-F(50x90) 
E-11 
14.2.2002 
1575100.00 
34. 
Mrs. Surriya Nawaz, 
w/o 
Mohammad 
Nawaz Malik 
632-G(50x90) 
E-11 
20.2.2002 
1575100.00 
35. 
Mr. Naseer Ali, Banker, 
s/o Muhammad Nawaz 
Malik                                                                                                                                   
2112-
A(50x90) 
O-9 
11.9.2003 
500100.00 
36. 
Mr. 
Arif 
Hussain, 
Accountant, 
s/o 
Muhammad 
Nawaz 
Malik 
2093-
T(50x90) 
O-9 
11.9.2003 
500100.00 
37. 
Mr. Manzoor Ahmad, 
I.G. 
669 
Sub-
1068(50x90) 
E-11 
1.12.1999 
1200600.00 
38. 
Mrs. Qaisar Sultana, 
w/o Manzoor Ahmed 
670(50x90) 
E-11 
1.12.1999 
1130100.00 
39. 
Ch. Manzoor Ahmad, 
I.G. 
400-B (35x65) 
O-9 
7.10.2011 
251000.00 
40. 
Mr. 
Zaheed 
Waheed 
Butt, Brig. 
676(50x90) 
E-11  
29.3.2002 
1575100.00 
41. 
Mrs. Zille Huma Dar, 
w/o 
Zahid 
Waheed 
Butt, Brig. 
645(35x65) 
E-11 
29.3.2002 
105400.00 
42. 
Mr. Muhammad Afzal 
Rana, Lt. Col. 
708(50x90) 
E-11 
20.2.2002 
787600.00 
43. 
Miss. Sadia Afzal Rana, 
d/o Muhammad Afzal 
Rana 
1035(50x90) 
E-11 
11.11.2002 
1500350.00 
C.R.P. NOs. 309 TO 312, 320, 321, 323 TO 327, 348, 349, 354 TO 356, 361, 362, 364 TO 366, 
373, 377, 378, 357 To 360, 363, 367 TO 372, 374 TO 376 OF 2013 AND 31 TO 33, 49 TO 54 OF 
2014 AND C.M.A. NOs. 1059, 1063, 2334, 2338, 2343, 2347, 2351, 2353 OF 2014 IN C.R.P. NOs. 
NIL OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 AND C.M.A. NO. 1429 OF 2015 IN C.R.P. NO. NIL OF 2015 
IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 
17
44. 
Agha 
Baqir 
Ali 
, 
Foreign Service Officer 
871(50x90) 
O-9 
4.4.1991 
240100.00 
45. 
Agha Sibtain Raza s/o 
Agha Baqir Ali 
873(50x90) 
O-9 
4.4.1991 
240100.00 
46. 
Mr. Amjad Bashir, s/o 
Mr. Muhammad Bashir 
1845-
V(50x90) 
O-9 
26.2.2005 
958100.00 
47. 
Miam Imtiaz Bashir, 
s/o Mr. Muhammad 
Bashir 
1845-
H(50x90) 
O-9 
25.2.2005 
500100.00 
48. 
Mr. Shaukat Aziz, Ex-
Prime Minister 
411(50x90) 
E-11 
20.8.2002 
1105100.00 
49. 
Mr. Shaukat Aziz, Ex-
Prime Minister  
357(50x90) 
O-9 
7.10.1990 
245100.00 
50. 
Mrs. Rukhsana Aziz, 
w/o Shaukat Aziz, Ex-
P.M.  
358(50x90) 
O-9 
7.10.1990 
245100.00 
51. 
Mr. Israr Ahmed, I.G. 
594(50x90) 
O-9 
22.10.1990 
245100.00 
52. 
Mr. Israr Ahmed, I.G. 
286(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
1105100.00 
53.  
Mrs. Maimoona Israr, 
w/o Israr Ahmed 
593(50x90) 
O-9 
22.10.1990 
240100.00 
54. 
Mr. Sagheer Ahmed, 
PIA  
143(40x60) 
O-9 
10.1.2005 
1066880.00 
55. 
Mrs. Shaista Sagheer, 
wife of Sageer Ahmad 
76(12x20) 
O-9 
19.12.2002 
106780.00 
56. 
Malik 
Nazir 
Ahmad, 
Banker 
34(15x30) 
O-9 
28.12.1999 
104100.00 
57. 
Mrs. 
Nasim 
Akhtar 
Naz, w/o Malik Nazir 
Ahmad 
33(15x30) 
O-9 
28.12.1999 
104100.00 
58. 
Syeda 
Farzana 
Hussain, 
w/o 
Syed 
Shaukat Hussain 
130(15x30) 
O-9 
28.10.2002 
200100.00 
59. 
Syeda Naureen Batool, 
d/o 
Syed 
Shoukat 
Hussain 
122(15x30) 
O-9 
28.10.2002 
200100.00 
60. 
Mr. 
Sulran 
Azam 
Temori, IG 
718(50x90) 
E-11 
14.2.2002 
1665100.00 
61. 
Mr. 
Sultan 
Azam 
Temuri, DIG 
88(12x20) 
O-9 
14.12.2001 
56367.00 
62. 
Mrs. 
Rabia 
Temuri, 
w/o 
Sultan 
Azam 
Temuri 
160(15x30) 
O-9 
4.11.2003 
200100.00 
63. 
Mr. 
Siraj 
Din, 
Businessman, 
s/o 
Muhammad Din 
52(12x20) 
O-9 
18.7.2002 
53434.00 
64. 
Mr. Naik Bakht s/o 
Muhammad Din 
53(12x20) 
O-9 
18.7.2002 
43434.00 
C.R.P. NOs. 309 TO 312, 320, 321, 323 TO 327, 348, 349, 354 TO 356, 361, 362, 364 TO 366, 
373, 377, 378, 357 To 360, 363, 367 TO 372, 374 TO 376 OF 2013 AND 31 TO 33, 49 TO 54 OF 
2014 AND C.M.A. NOs. 1059, 1063, 2334, 2338, 2343, 2347, 2351, 2353 OF 2014 IN C.R.P. NOs. 
NIL OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 AND C.M.A. NO. 1429 OF 2015 IN C.R.P. NO. NIL OF 2015 
IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 
18
65 
Mrs. Bilqees Akhtar, 
w/o Ghulam Ali 
121(15x30) 
O-9 
18.10.2002 
200100.00 
66. 
Miss 
Batool 
Akhtar, 
d/o Ghulam Ali 
113(15x30) 
O-9 
18.10.2002 
200100.00 
67. 
Mr. Ahsan-ulHaq s/0 
Abdul Aziz 
109(15x30) 
O-9 
19.12.2002 
200100.00 
68. 
Mr. Rizwan-ul-Haq s/o 
Abdul Aziz 
108(15x30) 
O-9 
19.12.2002 
200100.00 
69. 
Mr. 
Arif 
Qayum, 
Businessman 
148(15x30) 
O-9 
17.8.2011 
200100.00 
70. 
Mrs. Najma Arif, w/o 
Arif Qayyum 
147(15x30) 
O-9 
18.6.2003 
200100.00 
71. 
Mr. Humayoun Javaid, 
® Director FIA 
184(12x20) 
O-9 
22.2.2010 
1491000.00 
72. 
Mr. Humayoun Javaid, 
® Director FIA 
185(12x20) 
O-9 
22.2.2010 
1491000.00 
73. 
Mr. 
Fazal 
Mehmood 
Malik, Businessman 
187(12x20) 
O-9 
22.2.2010 
1521000.00 
74. 
Mr. 
Fazal 
Mehmood 
Malik, Businessman 
188(12x20) 
O-9 
22.2.2010 
1521000.00 
75. 
Mr. Zaheer Mahmood, 
Businessman, 
s/o 
Mahmood Khan 
2093-B 
(50x90) 
O-9 
8.3.2003 
100.00 
76. 
Mr. Mudasser Sheraz, 
s/0 Mehmood Khan 
2093-C 
(50x90) 
O-9 
8.3.2003 
100.00 
77. 
Mrs. Ghulam Sughra, 
w/o Mr. Muhammad 
Bashir Shakir, Captian 
119-K (50x90) 
O-9 
31.3.2003 
500100.00 
78. 
Mr. Jawad Bashir, s.o 
Muhammad 
Bashir 
Shakir 
119-L (50x90) 
O-9 
31.3.2003 
500100.00 
79. 
Mrs. Zahida Parveen, 
w/o Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad 
119-G 
(50x90) 
O-9 
1.4.2003 
500100.00 
80. 
Miss. Zehra Imtiaz, d/o 
Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad 
119-H 
(50x90) 
O-9 
1.4.2003 
500100.00 
81. 
Syed 
Muhammad 
Shahwaze 
Abbas 
Sherazi 
s/o 
Syed 
Safeer Hussain Shah 
Sherazi, DSP 
698-L (50x90) 
O-9 
25.2.2003 
100.00 
82. 
Syedia Saffia Kazmi, 
w/o 
Syed 
Safeer 
Hussain Shah Sherazi, 
DSP 
698-N (50x90) 
O-9 
25.2.2003 
100.00 
83. 
Syed 
Ibn-e-Ali 
Rizvi, 
s/o Syed Sardar ali 
Shah 
163-H 
(50x90) 
O-9 
1.3.2003 
450100.00 
84. 
Mrs. 
Narjis 
Batool 
Kazi, Doctor, w/o Syed 
163-G 
O-9 
1.3.2003 
450100.00 
C.R.P. NOs. 309 TO 312, 320, 321, 323 TO 327, 348, 349, 354 TO 356, 361, 362, 364 TO 366, 
373, 377, 378, 357 To 360, 363, 367 TO 372, 374 TO 376 OF 2013 AND 31 TO 33, 49 TO 54 OF 
2014 AND C.M.A. NOs. 1059, 1063, 2334, 2338, 2343, 2347, 2351, 2353 OF 2014 IN C.R.P. NOs. 
NIL OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 AND C.M.A. NO. 1429 OF 2015 IN C.R.P. NO. NIL OF 2015 
IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 
19
Ibn-e-Ali Rizvi 
(50x90) 
85. 
Mr. Jehangir Akhtar 
s/o Noor Mohammad 
400-M 
(50x90) 
O-9 
31.3.2003 
500100.00 
86. 
Mr. 
Tanveer Akhtar, 
Businessman, 
s/o 
Noor Muhammad  
400-N (50x90) 
O-9 
31.3.2003 
500100.00 
87. 
Mr. 
Babar 
Mumtaz, 
DSP 
450-K (50x90) 
O-9 
31.3.2003 
500100.00 
88. 
Mr. Amir Mumtaz s/o 
Sardar 
Mumtaz 
Ali 
Khan 
450-L (50x90) 
O-9 
31.3.2003 
500100.00 
89. 
Mr. 
Muhammad 
Farhan 
Ghauri 
s/o 
Muhammad Sharif Ijaz 
Ghauri 
99-D (50x90) 
O.-9 
27.1.2004 
337500.00 
90. 
Mr. Muhammad Faisal 
Ghauri, 
s/o 
Muhammad Sharif Ijaz 
Ghauri 
99-F (50x90) 
O-9 
27.1.2004 
337500.00 
91. 
Mr. Akhtar Mahmud, 
Businessman s/o Ch. 
Khuda Dad Khan 
2150 (50x90) 
O-9 
16.9.2002 
450100.00 
92. 
Mrs. Naila Akhtar, W/o 
Akhtar Mahmud 
2151 (50x90) 
O-9 
16.9.2002 
450100.00 
93. 
Mr. Muhammad Afzal 
Khan, S.J. (R.) 
2096 (50x90) 
O-9 
4.9.2002 
450100.00 
94. 
Miss Atika Khan, d/o 
Muhammad 
Afzal 
Khan 
2093 (50x90) 
O-9 
4.9.2002 
450100.00 
95. 
Mr. Mehmood Farooq 
Khan, 
NRSP, 
s/o 
Muhammad 
Akbar 
Khan 
2105 (50x90) 
O-9 
15.6.2001 
450100.00 
96. 
Mr. 
Masood 
Akbar, 
NRSP, s/o Muhammad 
Akbar Khan 
2106 
O-9 
15.6.2001 
450100.00 
97. 
Mr. 
Abdul 
Sattar, 
Businessman 
s/o 
Abdul Ghafoor 
451-R (50x90) 
O-9 
1.4.2003 
100.00 
98. 
Mrs. Shafqat Sattar, 
W/o Abdul Sattar 
451-U 
O-9 
1.4.2003 
100.00 
99. 
Mr. Mohammad Ahsan 
Shahzad, 
s/o 
Abdul 
Sattar 
451-T (50x90) 
O-9 
1.4.2003 
100.00 
100. 
Mr. Arshad Munir, s/o 
Abdul Ghafoor 
451-S (50x90) 
O-9 
1.4.2003 
100.00 
101. 
Mr. 
Tayyab 
Aziz, 
Businessman, 
s/o 
Abdul Aziz 
451-P (50x90) 
O-9 
1.4.2003 
100.00 
C.R.P. NOs. 309 TO 312, 320, 321, 323 TO 327, 348, 349, 354 TO 356, 361, 362, 364 TO 366, 
373, 377, 378, 357 To 360, 363, 367 TO 372, 374 TO 376 OF 2013 AND 31 TO 33, 49 TO 54 OF 
2014 AND C.M.A. NOs. 1059, 1063, 2334, 2338, 2343, 2347, 2351, 2353 OF 2014 IN C.R.P. NOs. 
NIL OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 AND C.M.A. NO. 1429 OF 2015 IN C.R.P. NO. NIL OF 2015 
IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 
20
102. 
Mrs. Rukhsana Tayyab 
w/o Tayyab Aziz 
451-N (50x90) 
O-9 
1.4.2003 
100.00 
103. 
Hafiz S.d. Jamy, IG 
(Ex-MD NPF) 
446(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
1188920.00 
104. 
Mr. 
Hassan 
Naveed 
Jamy, Engineer, s/o 
Hafiz S.d. Jamy 
255(50x90) 
O-9 
10.10.1990 
240100.00 
105. 
Mr. Gul Najam Jamy, 
Govt. Service, s/o Hafiz 
S.d. Jamy 
813(50x90) 
O-9 
11.10.1990 
245100.00 
106. 
Mr. I.M. Mohsin, I.G. 
672(50x90) 
E-11 
14.2.2002 
1130100.00 
107. 
Mr. I.M. Mohsin, I.G. 
884(50x90) 
O-9 
19.2.1991 
245100.00 
108. 
Mr. Rajeel Mohsin, s/o 
I. M. Mohsin 
1021 (50x90) 
E-11 
11.11.2002 
1575100.00 
109. 
Miss Nashita Mariyam, 
d/o I. M. Mohsin 
217-A (50x90) 
O-9 
17.11.1992 
280100.00 
110. 
Mr. Usman Amin Mian 
s/o Mian Muhammad 
Amin (I.G.) Ex-MD NPF 
457(50x90) 
E-11 
21.3.2000 
1200600.00 
111. 
Mr. Afnan Amin Mian, 
Engineer, 
s/o 
Mian 
Muhammad Amin (I.G.) 
Ex-MD NPF 
606 (50x90) 
E-11 
21.3.2000 
1130100.00 
112. 
Dr. 
Sikandar 
Amin 
Mian, Doctor, s/o Mian 
Muhammad Amin (I.G.) 
Ex-MD NPF 
605(50x90) 
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(50x90) 
E-11 
4.7.1998 
1200600.00 
114. 
Dr. Naila Kamran, D/o 
Mian 
Muhammad 
Amin (I.G.) Ex-MD NPF 
542(50x90) 
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(50x90) 
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 
04.07.1998 
1132100.00 
118. 
Mrs. Hina Asher Khan 
d/o  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. 
Mr.Mrs. Aisha Khanum  
wife of Umar Alam 
Khan 
5 
(12 X 20) 
O-9 
01.04.2001 
56100.00 
C.R.P. NOs. 309 TO 312, 320, 321, 323 TO 327, 348, 349, 354 TO 356, 361, 362, 364 TO 366, 
373, 377, 378, 357 To 360, 363, 367 TO 372, 374 TO 376 OF 2013 AND 31 TO 33, 49 TO 54 OF 
2014 AND C.M.A. NOs. 1059, 1063, 2334, 2338, 2343, 2347, 2351, 2353 OF 2014 IN C.R.P. NOs. 
NIL OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 AND C.M.A. NO. 1429 OF 2015 IN C.R.P. NO. NIL OF 2015 
IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 
21
121. 
Mr. Sikandar Hayat 
Shaheen, DIG 
511 
(50 X 90) 
E-11 
28.03.2002 
580100.00 
122. 
Mrs. Riffat Shaheen 
wife of Sikandar Hayat 
Shaheen 
582 
50 X 90 
E-11 
04.07.1998 
1130100.00 
123. 
Miss Fatima Shaheen 
d/o Sikandar Hayat 
Shaheen 
1273  
(50 X 90) 
O-9 
17.06.2002 
450100.00 
124. 
Dr. Amina Shaheen 
(Lady Doctor) d/o 
Sikandar Hayat 
Shaheen 
 
400-B 
(50 X 90) 
O-9 
17.06.2002 
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 
30.03.2002 
516766.00 
127. 
Mr. Abdul Mateen 
Kamran, Businessman 
son of Abdul Hannan  
604   
(50 X 90) 
E-11 
04.12.2002 
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 70) 
O-9 
14.5.2003 
777877.00 
130. 
Mr. Faisal Hannan, 
Businessman son of 
Abdul Hannan 
136 
(50 X 70) 
O-9 
14.05.2003 
77877.00 
131. 
Mr. Umar Hannan son 
of Abdul Hannan 
135 
(50 X 70) 
O-9 
14.05.2003 
777877.00 
132. 
Miss Aisha Hannan 
D/o of Abdul Hannan   
147 
(50 X 70) 
O-9 
14.05.2003 
777877.00 
133. 
Mrs. Shahida Nasreen 
wife of Khuda Bukhsh 
138 
(50 X 70) 
(purchased) 
O-9 
13.05.2003 
777877.00 
134. 
Mrs. Soban Bi wife of 
Khuda Bukhsh 
142 
(40 X 60) 
 
O-9 
07.01.2005 
1066780.00 
135. 
Mrs. Shahida Nasreen 
wife of Khuda Bukhsh 
752 
(50 X 90) 
(purchased) 
O-9 
07.02.1991 
240100.00 
136. 
Mrs. Shahida Nasreen 
wife of Khuda Bukhsh 
 
1074 
 (35 X 65) 
O-9 
07.02.1991 
122600.00 
137. 
Mr. Khuda Bukhsh Ex-
DDH/NPF 
 
149 
(50 X 70) 
O-9 
13.05.2003 
777877.00 
138. 
Mrs. Shahida Nasreen 
wife of Khuda Bukhsh 
 
124 
(15 X 30) 
O-9 
13.01.2003 
200100.00 
139. 
Mr. Khuda Bakhsh Ex-
DDH/NPF 
 
513 
(50 X 90) 
E-11 
04.07.1998 
541766.00 
140. 
Mr. Khuda Bakhsh Ex-
DDH/NPF 
426 
(50 X 90) 
E-11 
04.07.1998 
1025575.00 
141. 
Mr. Asad-ur-Rehman 
son of Khuda Bukhsh 
409-A 
(50 X 90) 
E-11 
05.09.2003 
1575100.00 
142. 
Mr. Khuda Bakhsh Ex-
DDH/NPF 
212 
(35 X 65) 
E-11 
(Mem
bersh
ip) 
04.07.1998 
565100.00 
143. 
Miss Nasira Naureen 
644 
E-11 
21.02.2003 
2871300.00 
C.R.P. NOs. 309 TO 312, 320, 321, 323 TO 327, 348, 349, 354 TO 356, 361, 362, 364 TO 366, 
373, 377, 378, 357 To 360, 363, 367 TO 372, 374 TO 376 OF 2013 AND 31 TO 33, 49 TO 54 OF 
2014 AND C.M.A. NOs. 1059, 1063, 2334, 2338, 2343, 2347, 2351, 2353 OF 2014 IN C.R.P. NOs. 
NIL OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 AND C.M.A. NO. 1429 OF 2015 IN C.R.P. NO. NIL OF 2015 
IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 
22
d/o Khuda Bukhsh 
(50 & 90) 
(purc
hase
d) 
144. 
Mr. Khuda Bakhsh, 
Ex-DDH/NPF 
211 
(35 X 65) 
E-11 
Mem
bersh
ip) 
04.07.1998 
565100.00 
145. 
Mr.Muhammad Zaman 
138 
(15 X 30) 
O-9 
27.05.2003 
200100.00 
146. 
Mr. Muhammad 
Zaman Ex-Site 
Engineer/NPF 
 
298  
(25 X 45) 
O-9 
02.08.2002 
112600.00 
147. 
Mr.Muhammad Zaman 
Ex-Site Engineer/NPF 
303 
(35 X 65) 
E-11 
04.07.1998 
600350.00 
148. 
Mrs. Nayyar Rafat wife 
of Syed Rafat Mustafa  
 
69 
(50 X 90) 
E-11 
04.07.1998 
1130100.00 
149. 
Syed Rafat Mustafa ex-
DD/B&A 
510 
(50 X 90) 
E-11 
28.03.2002 
 
 
516767.00 
150. 
Mrs. Bibi Hanifa wife of 
Mumtaz Ellahi 
100 
(35 X 65) 
E-11 
04.07.1998 
600350.00 
151. 
Mr. Mumtaz Ellahi ex-
PSO to MD/NPF 
632-B  
(50 X 90) 
E-11 
04.07.1998 
1130100.00 
152. 
Mr. Mumtaz Ellahi ex-
PSO to MD/NPF 
45 
(35 X 65) 
E-11 
04.07.1998 
565100.00 
153. 
Mr. Abdul Jamal Khan, 
DF/NPF  
514 
(50 X 90) 
E-11 
28.03.2002 
516766.00 
154. 
Mrs. Zarina Khan d/o 
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 
04.07.1998 
552600.00 
156. 
Mrs. Naseem Akhtar 
wife of Muhammad 
Khan 
357 
(35 X 65) 
E-11 
04.07.1998 
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 moto jurisdiction by this 
Court are present in these proceedings is concerned, we have 
C.R.P. NOs. 309 TO 312, 320, 321, 323 TO 327, 348, 349, 354 TO 356, 361, 362, 364 TO 366, 
373, 377, 378, 357 To 360, 363, 367 TO 372, 374 TO 376 OF 2013 AND 31 TO 33, 49 TO 54 OF 
2014 AND C.M.A. NOs. 1059, 1063, 2334, 2338, 2343, 2347, 2351, 2353 OF 2014 IN C.R.P. NOs. 
NIL OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 AND C.M.A. NO. 1429 OF 2015 IN C.R.P. NO. NIL OF 2015 
IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 
23
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 moto 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. 11/2011, 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 CMA bearing 
No. 3742/2013 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 
C.R.P. NOs. 309 TO 312, 320, 321, 323 TO 327, 348, 349, 354 TO 356, 361, 362, 364 TO 366, 
373, 377, 378, 357 To 360, 363, 367 TO 372, 374 TO 376 OF 2013 AND 31 TO 33, 49 TO 54 OF 
2014 AND C.M.A. NOs. 1059, 1063, 2334, 2338, 2343, 2347, 2351, 2353 OF 2014 IN C.R.P. NOs. 
NIL OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 AND C.M.A. NO. 1429 OF 2015 IN C.R.P. NO. NIL OF 2015 
IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 
24
report the suo moto 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 
Vs. 
Federation 
of 
Pakistan 
through 
Secretary 
Establishment Division (2012 PLD 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 
C.R.P. NOs. 309 TO 312, 320, 321, 323 TO 327, 348, 349, 354 TO 356, 361, 362, 364 TO 366, 
373, 377, 378, 357 To 360, 363, 367 TO 372, 374 TO 376 OF 2013 AND 31 TO 33, 49 TO 54 OF 
2014 AND C.M.A. NOs. 1059, 1063, 2334, 2338, 2343, 2347, 2351, 2353 OF 2014 IN C.R.P. NOs. 
NIL OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 AND C.M.A. NO. 1429 OF 2015 IN C.R.P. NO. NIL OF 2015 
IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 
25
Punjab Bank case had sent the matters to NAB. In Ashfaque 
Ahmed Vs. National Accountability Bureau through Chairman 
(2014 PLD 109, Quetta) 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 
C.R.P. NOs. 309 TO 312, 320, 321, 323 TO 327, 348, 349, 354 TO 356, 361, 362, 364 TO 366, 
373, 377, 378, 357 To 360, 363, 367 TO 372, 374 TO 376 OF 2013 AND 31 TO 33, 49 TO 54 OF 
2014 AND C.M.A. NOs. 1059, 1063, 2334, 2338, 2343, 2347, 2351, 2353 OF 2014 IN C.R.P. NOs. 
NIL OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 AND C.M.A. NO. 1429 OF 2015 IN C.R.P. NO. NIL OF 2015 
IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 
26
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. 
C.R.P. NOs. 309 TO 312, 320, 321, 323 TO 327, 348, 349, 354 TO 356, 361, 362, 364 TO 366, 
373, 377, 378, 357 To 360, 363, 367 TO 372, 374 TO 376 OF 2013 AND 31 TO 33, 49 TO 54 OF 
2014 AND C.M.A. NOs. 1059, 1063, 2334, 2338, 2343, 2347, 2351, 2353 OF 2014 IN C.R.P. NOs. 
NIL OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 AND C.M.A. NO. 1429 OF 2015 IN C.R.P. NO. NIL OF 2015 
IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 
27
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 
C.R.P. NOs. 309 TO 312, 320, 321, 323 TO 327, 348, 349, 354 TO 356, 361, 362, 364 TO 366, 
373, 377, 378, 357 To 360, 363, 367 TO 372, 374 TO 376 OF 2013 AND 31 TO 33, 49 TO 54 OF 
2014 AND C.M.A. NOs. 1059, 1063, 2334, 2338, 2343, 2347, 2351, 2353 OF 2014 IN C.R.P. NOs. 
NIL OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 AND C.M.A. NO. 1429 OF 2015 IN C.R.P. NO. NIL OF 2015 
IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 
28
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 CMAs 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, 
C.R.P. NOs. 309 TO 312, 320, 321, 323 TO 327, 348, 349, 354 TO 356, 361, 362, 364 TO 366, 
373, 377, 378, 357 To 360, 363, 367 TO 372, 374 TO 376 OF 2013 AND 31 TO 33, 49 TO 54 OF 
2014 AND C.M.A. NOs. 1059, 1063, 2334, 2338, 2343, 2347, 2351, 2353 OF 2014 IN C.R.P. NOs. 
NIL OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 AND C.M.A. NO. 1429 OF 2015 IN C.R.P. NO. NIL OF 2015 
IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 
29
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 CMAs 
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 CMAs 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 
C.R.P. NOs. 309 TO 312, 320, 321, 323 TO 327, 348, 349, 354 TO 356, 361, 362, 364 TO 366, 
373, 377, 378, 357 To 360, 363, 367 TO 372, 374 TO 376 OF 2013 AND 31 TO 33, 49 TO 54 OF 
2014 AND C.M.A. NOs. 1059, 1063, 2334, 2338, 2343, 2347, 2351, 2353 OF 2014 IN C.R.P. NOs. 
NIL OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 AND C.M.A. NO. 1429 OF 2015 IN C.R.P. NO. NIL OF 2015 
IN S.M.C. NO. 11 OF 2011 
30
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.  
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad,  
Announced on ________________ 
 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram`