IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN  
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE EJAZ AFZAL KHAN 
MR. JUSTICE MAQBOOL BAQAR 
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011.  
Application against the illegal adjustment in Revenue Record Land is 
being  
given to Bahria Foundation, filed by Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi 
 
AND 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.450-K OF 2014 IN 
S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011.  
Objection in C.M.A.408-K/2014 filed by Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi 
 
AND 
 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION NOS.20-K TO 23-K OF 2014 IN 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 
 
Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi   
 
 
… Petitioner(s) 
VERSUS  
Malik Israr, Sr. Member Board of Revenue Sindh 
(in Crl.O.P.20-K/14) 
Muhammad Ali Shah, Deputy Commissioner District West Karachi 
  
      
 
 
 
 
 
(in Crl.O.P.21-K/14) 
Jan Muhammad Qazi, Deputy Commissioner District Malir, Karachi       
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(in Crl.O.P.22-
K/14) 
Muhammad Suhail, D.G. Malir, Development Authority   
       
(in Crl.O.P.23-K/14) 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
… Respondent(s) 
AND 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.275-K OF 2015 IN 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 
Written Arguments on behalf of the Senior Member Board of 
Revenue, Sindh 
 
AND 
 
CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO.32-K OF 2015 IN  
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 
 
Muhammad Sohail 
 
 
  
 
… Petitioner(s) 
VERSUS  
S.M. Akhter Naqvi and another   
 
 
… Respondent(s) 
 
AND 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.261-K OF 2016 IN  
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
2
Application for Intervenor filed by Mr. Anees Ahmed for taking action 
Ex-DG, MDA (Mr.M.Suhail for illegal allotment and recruitment in the 
Authority 
 
AND 
CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NOs.51-K OF 2016 IN  
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 
 
Waqas Riffat and others   
  
 
… Petitioner(s) 
VERSUS  
Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi and others   
 
… Respondent(s) 
 
AND 
 
CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO.57-K OF 2016 IN  
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION NO.6-K OF 2016 
 
Director General Malir Development Authority 
… Petitioner(s) 
VERSUS  
Anees Ahmed others 
 
 
  
 
… Respondent(s) 
 
AND 
 
CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO.59-K OF 2016 IN  
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 
 
The Province of Sindh and another   
 
 
AND 
 
CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO.62-K AND 63-K OF 2016 IN  
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.6-K OF 2016 
 
M/s Bahria Town (Pvt.) Ltd. 
 
 
 
(in C.R.P.62-K/16) 
Secy: Local Govt. (HTP), Govt. of Sindh. 
 
(in C.R.P.63-K/16)  
… Petitioner(s) 
VERSUS  
Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi and others  … Respondent(s) 
 
AND 
 
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.1699 OF 2016 IN 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION NO.6-K OF 2016 
Application on behalf of Muhammad Irfan & 16 others for setting 
aside the notification dated 21.09.2016 issued by the respondent 
 
AND 
 
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.1816 OF 2017 
Application on behalf of M Irfan and 16 others 
 
AND 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.1497 OF 2017 IN 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 
Application for impleadment by Qamar Bhatti 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
3
 
AND 
 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 211 OF 2017  
Akhtar Ali vs Javid Iqbal and others. 
 
AND 
 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 216 OF 2017  
Anees Ahmed vs Province of Sindh. 
 
AND 
 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 240 OF 2017 
Dr. Muhammad Shafiq-ur-Rahman vs Absar Alam, Chairman, PEMRA, 
Islamabad etc.  
 
AND 
 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 16 OF 2018 
Mian Ghulam Rasul vs Mr. Muhammad Sohail Khan and others  
 
In Attendance: 
For petitioners/applicants 
and respondents:  
Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi, In person.  
 
 
 
 
(in CMA.376-K/14, 450-K/14,  
Crl.O.Ps.20-23-K/14) 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Farooq H. Naek, Sr. ASC.  
 
 
 
 
(in CMA.275-K/15 & CMA.376-K/14).  
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Rasheed A. Rizvi, Sr. ASC (For MDA) 
 
 
 
 
a/w M. Irfan (Law Officer MDA). 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Munir-ur-Rehman, ASC. 
 
 
 
 
(in CRP.32-K/15, CMA. 376-K/14 &  
CRP.57-K/16) 
 
 
 
 
 
Nemo. (in CMA. 261-K/16) 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan, Sr. ASC (For Bahria Town) 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Gohar Ali Khan, ASC.  
 
 
 
 
Mr. M. S. Khattak, AOR.  
 
 
 
 
M. Asif (Law Officer Bahria Town).  
 
 
 
 
(in CRP. 51-K/16 & CMA. 376-K/14). 
 
 
 
 
 
Barrister Zamir Hussain Ghumro, AG, Sindh. 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Shehryar Qazi, Addl. A. G. Sindh.  
 
 
 
 
(in CRP.59-K/16 and CMA.376-K/14).  
 
 
 
 
 
Syed Ali Zafar, ASC (For Bahria Town). 
 
 
 
 
(in CRP.62-K/16 and CMA. 376-K/14).  
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Munir-ur-Rehman, ASC. 
 
 
 
 
(in CRP. 63-K/16).  
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Zakir Hussain Khaskheli, ASC. 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
4
 
 
 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR.  
 
 
 
 
(in Crl.M.As.1699/16, 1816/17 &  
Crl. O. P.211/17). 
 
 
 
 
 
Nemo. (in CMA.1497/17 and  
Crl. O. P. 216/17).  
 
 
 
 
 
Dr. M. Shafiq-ur-Rehman, In person.  
 
 
 
 
(in Crl. O. P. 240/17).  
 
 
 
 
 
Mian Ghulam Rasool, In person.  
 
 
 
 
(in Crl. O. P. 16/2018.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nasir Mehmood Mughal Sp. Prosecutor  
 
 
 
 
Along with Qamar Abbasi, IO (NAB) 
 
Date of hearing: 
07, 20 to 22.02.2018, 28.02.2018, 06.03.2018, 
14.03.2018, 21 to 22.03.2018 and 27.03.2018. 
(Judgment Reserved).  
 
                                 .-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-. 
 
 
    J U D G M E N T 
 
 
EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.- C.M.A 376-K of 2014 was filed 
alleging that Malir Development Authority (hereinafter called “MDA”) 
is adjusting the government land pursuant to the notifications issued 
by the Board of Revenue, Sindh.  It was alleged that the value of the 
government land was far higher than the value of the private land it 
was exchanged for. The exchange thus effected was looked at with 
raised eyebrows. A series of orders was passed by this Court in this 
behalf. The order passed on 23.07.2015 is quite significant for the 
purposes of this case. The relevant part of the order deserves a look 
and thus runs as under:  
“The Deputy Commissioner, Malir admits to have signed the 
plan defining the boundaries of controlled area. According 
to him the master plan is comprised of 43 dehs. He states 
that he has merely forwarded the plan to the Senior 
Member, Board of Revenue. He further states that all the 
layout plans are routed through him and the schemes of the 
layout plans whether private or otherwise are signed by him 
after verifying their title. He is directed to place before us all 
the schemes whether public or private with their layout 
plans, which he has forwarded or verified since the day he 
assumed the office of Deputy Commissioner, Malir before 
the next date of hearing. 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
5
 
Mr. Rasheed A. Rizvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court 
for MDA, when confronted as to how the MDA has acquired 
the title of the land, states that the land is owned by the 
Provincial Government and there is no notification by the 
Board of Revenue allowing the MDA to utilize this land. He 
however, relies upon sections 8 and 14 of MDA Act, 1993, 
which has been amended in the year 2013 for the purposes 
of acquiring power of allotment. We with respect disagree 
with this contention of the learned Counsel. The Board of 
Revenue under law, with the approval of competent 
authority has the authority to allot land under the 
Colonization Act and no other procedure provided in law, 
for allotment of land. 
 
Another order having meaningful bearing on this case was passed 
on 09.03.2016. The relevant part of the order reads as under:  
"We are informed by the Chief Secretary, Sindh that the Sr. 
Member, Board of Revenue has proceeded to Islamabad 
on account of some family emergency and will be back 
by today evening. Since the matter relates to the Board of 
Revenue, therefore, we deem it necessary that he should 
appear before the Court tomorrow before any Order is 
passed in this matter. We are further informed that in 
compliance with the Order passed yesterday, Mr. 
Muhammad Sohail who was assigned the look after as 
D.C. MDA has been de-notified. The Sindh Government is 
directed to appoint any officer of their choice, eligible for 
the post of D.G. MDA, within one week in the intervening 
period, the Secretary, Local Government will have the 
additional charge. 
3. 
We restrained the MDA from allotting and/or dealing 
with the land in any manner whatsoever till further orders. 
The Sr. Member, Board of Revenue yesterday, while 
present in Court, has disputed the authority of the MDA to 
allot or otherwise deal with the land with anyone as, 
according to him, the land was neither allotted nor given 
possession to the MDA. According to the Sr. Member, 
Board of Revenue, the land within MDA is fully owned by 
Sindh Government. Besides the aforesaid reason, this 
Court on 28.11.2012 has passed restraining order restricting 
the powers of authority from allotting state land to 
anyone. This restraining order also applies to all the 
authorities under Sindh Government who claimed their 
title from the state/Board of Revenue.”  
 
On 24.05.2016, this Court apprehending that things are not done in 
an open, fair and transparent manner, proceeded to pass the order 
dated 24.05.2016 by observing as under:   
“We have heard Mr. Waqas Qadeer Dar, Prosecutor 
General NAB, Mr. Qamar Abbas Abbasi, Investigating 
Officer, Mr.Farooq H. Naek, learned Sr. ASC, Mr. Zia-ud-Din 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
6
Sabir, Director Town Planning, MDA and Mr. Rizwan Memon, 
Sr. Member, Board of Revenue. 
 
2.  
NAB has so far not been able to complete the inquiry 
as directed by this Court on the last date of hearing. 
However it has filed an interim inquiry report. We have gone 
through this report and from a cursory glance find that 
whatever probe that has so far been made is not sufficient 
to address the issues raised by this Court with regard to 
allotment of land by Government of Sindh to MDA and its 
subsequent disposal by MDA. Mr. Waqas Qadeer Dar, 
Prosecutor General NAB seeks a further period of two 
months to finalize the inquiry. Time for filing final report is 
extended by two months, From what has been addressed at 
the bar today by the learned counsel, we are of the view 
that inquiry must contain answers to the following questions 
in order to adequately address the issue which is subject 
matter of these proceedings. 
 
i) Whether the Sindh Government allotted the state land, 
which is subject matter of these proceedings to MDA under 
any legal instrument? 
 
Whether the possession of allotted land was handed over by 
the Sindh Government to MDA in terms of Section 10(4) of 
the Colonization & Disposal of Government Lands (Sindh) 
Act, 1912? 
 
iii) Whether the issuance of the notification dated 26.12.2013 
by which 43 dehs were declared as controlled area of MDA 
created any title in its favour in the land of such dehs? 
 
iv) Whether MDA prepared and issued its master plan after 
43 dehs were declared to be its controlled area and if so 
whether such plan was approved by the competent 
authority? 
 
v) Under what authority MDA can exchange private land 
within its controlled area with the state land? 
 
vi) Whether MDA handed over possession of 11000 acres of 
state land to private land developers and builders which 
was neither leased out nor handed over by the Sindh 
Government to MDA? 
 
vii) In what manner MDA transferred the land to Bahria Town 
or its directors or promoters or to any other private land 
developer or builder? 
 
viii) Whether MDA was competent to put private persons 
and land developers and builders in possession of the state 
land, which the MDA claims to have been transferred to it, 
on the basis of exchange and or consolidation scheme? 
 
ix) Whether the exchange/ consolidation of the private land 
with the state land by MDA is permissible under the law and 
that too beyond the area earmarked by MDA for planning 
purposes? 
 
x) Whether exchange of approximately 11000 acres of the 
valuable state land located on the superhighway by the 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
7
MDA with the land of the private person/private developers 
on the periphery under the garb of exchange and or 
consolidation scheme was in the interest of the state? 
 
xi) Whether Bahria Town or its directors or its promoters or any 
private developers or private parties lawfully owned and 
possessed land within the limits of district Malir on the date of 
inviting applications for allotment from public at large for the 
Housing Schemes through electronic and print media? 
 
xii) Whether before inviting applications for allotments from 
public at large, Bahria Town, its promoters, directors or other 
private developers got their Housing Schemes approved 
from the MDA through Deputy Commissioner Malir? and 
 
xiii) Whether Bahria Town or its directors or promoters or any 
private land developer or builder are in physical possession 
of land in excess of the land given to them by MDA? 
 
3. The NAB shall proceed with the inquiry in an independent 
manner without being influenced from any quarter. The 
inquiry in addition to other factors shall probe into the 
questions formulated hereinabove. For such purpose it shall 
examine entire record, including the revenue record, which 
shall be provided by the relevant authority (Senior Member 
Board of Revenue) to the officers of NAB who are entrusted 
with the inquiry in the matter. To come up after two months.” 
 
Another order which was passed on 01.08.2016 is also quite 
comprehensive as it not only deals with the controversy emerging 
before this Court but also refers to other orders which are relevant for 
understanding the instant case in its correct perspective, therefore, its 
reproduction is necessary which reads as under:  
“The Prosecutor General, NAB, has filed interim report dated 
25.07.2016 (confidential), along with a copy of the survey 
report dated 20.07.2015, prepared by the Ministry of 'Defense 
Directorate of Survey of Pakistan. It is contended by the 
learned Prosecutor General, NAB, that after the order dated 
24.05.2016, passed by this Court, the Survey of Pakistan, was 
approached by the NAB, for demarcation of the land in 
actual possession of the Bahria Town. 
 
2.  
The Director of Survey of Pakistan responded to the 
request of the NAB and after notices to the  Board of Revenue 
Sindh, Survey and Settlement Department, Sindh, Malir 
Development Authority (MDA), Deputy Commissioner, Malir, 
and the Bahria Town Karachi, conducted joint survey in 
presence of the representatives of the aforesaid organizations 
and compiled report, copy of which was supplied to the NAB 
authorities and has been placed before us. The Senior 
Member, Board of Revenue, states that they have not 
received any copy of the said report. We direct the NAB 
authorities to supply copies of the survey report to the Senior 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
8
Member, Board of Revenue, Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan, learned Sr.ASC, 
for officials of Bahria Town, Mr. K.A. Wahab, AOR for the Bahria 
Town and Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi, the Applicant, who 
request to file their objections if they deem it appropriate. The 
confidential report dated 25.07.2016 submitted by the NAB, 
shall be kept in sealed envelopes by the office. 
 
3.  
According to the survey report, the M.D.A has 
exchanged! consolidated 9140.260 Acres of land to Bahria 
Town. The survey report contains a portion of green colour with 
black lines, reflecting that M.D.A has consolidated a piece of 
land measuring 244.925 Acres which the Bahria Town has not 
yet developed. The survey report further shows that the total 
land consolidated by the M.D.A and handed over to the 
Bahria Town is 93 85.185 Acres. The portion marked with pink 
colour as "A" reflects that the Bahira Town has developed 
386.276 Acres of land which has not yet been consolidated by 
the M.D.A. The portion of survey report in pink colour marked 
as "B" reflects that Bahria Town has developed an area of 
1975.059 Acres which though developed by the Bahria Town 
has not been consolidated by the M.D.A. Another portion of 
the survey report marked as "C" in pink colour shows that the 
land measuring 410.444 Acres has been developed by the 
Bahria Town, but has not been consolidated by the M.D.A. The 
survey 
report 
shows 
that 
total 
land 
developed/under 
development but not consolidated by the M.D.A comes to 
2771.79 Acres. In this respect, total area of land of Bahria Town 
reflected in the survey report comes to 12156.964 Acres. 
 
4.  
We have inquired from the Chief Secretary, Senior 
Member, Board of Revenue, and the Advocate General, 
Sindh, to satisfy us under which law the M.D.A is competent to 
exchange private lands with the lands falling in the area which 
is reserved as corridor area, they could not offer any 
explanation and submit that no such powers are available 
with the M.D.A to allot or exchange the private land with the 
State land. It has come on record that no portion of the land 
pertaining to the subject matter has ever been allotted and or 
part in possession under Section 10(4) of the Colonization of 
Government Lands Act, 1894, by the Sindh Government to the 
M.D.A, which fact was confirmed by the Senior Member, 
Board of Revenue and incorporated in the order of this Court 
dated 09.03 .2016, which has already been reproduced 
above. 
This Court after going through the survey report dated 20.07.2016 
observed as under:  
 
5.  After going through the survey report dated 20.07.2016, we, 
in order to safeguard the public interest and to avoid multitude 
of proceedings, are constrained to pass the following interim 
order:- 
 
(i) the Bahria Town is restrained from undertaking any 
development activity in the area demarcated with 
green colour with black lines on it measuring 244.925 
Acres and or to deal with this portion of land with any 
person or organization in any manner whatsoever; 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
9
(ii) 
the 
Bahria 
Town 
is 
further 
restrained 
from 
undertaking any development activity on the portion 
marked as "A" with. pink colour measuring 386.276 
Acres, which is not consolidated by the M.D.A, with 
further restriction to deal with this portion of the land in 
any manner whatsoever; 
 
(iii) the Bahria Town is restrained from undertaking any 
development activity on the area marked as "B" with 
pink colour measuring 1975.059 Acres, which as per 
survey report has not been consolidated by the M.D.A 
and to deal with the land in any manner whatsoever; 
 
(iv) the Bahria Town is further restrained from 
undertaking any further development activity on 
the area marked as 'C" with pink colour measuring 
410.444 acres and or to deal with the 
land in any manner whatsoever; 
 
(v) the Bahria Town is further restrained from raising any 
further development 
activity in 
area measuring 
2771.779 Acres, which has not been consolidated by 
the M.D.A and to deal with the land in question in any 
manner whatsoever; 
 
(vi) the M.D.A is restrained from consolidating any 
further portion of the private land of the Bahria Town or 
any other private enterprise under the garb of 
exchange of land in exercise of their powers conferred 
on them under the M.D.A Act or the Rules framed 
thereunder; 
 
(vii) We further restrict the Board of Revenue, 
Government of Sindh, from dealing with the land of 
M.D.A or any other Authority which is subject matter of 
these proceedings in any manner whatsoever in 
defiance of the order of this Court passed by a five 
Member Bench of this Court on 28.11.2012; 
 
(viii) the MD.A is restrained from dealing with the land 
which are subject-matter of survey report either with 
Bahria Town or with any other organization in any 
manner whatsoever; 
 
(ix) defiance of the interim orders passed hereinabove 
by any of the organization whether public or private 
shall expose them to contempt 
proceedings. 
 
6.  In order to ensure that no further construction or 
development activity is carried out on the land specified 
hereinabove, we direct the NAB authorities through the 
Prosecutor General that they should immediately if possible by 
tomorrow obtain google earth maps/images of the entire land 
stated to be in possession of the Bahria Town as per the survey 
report and submit the same for record. 
What the orders reproduced above prima facie point to is that the 
provisions of Colonization of Government Land Act 1912 (hereinafter 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
10
called “COGLA 1912”) and Malir Development Authority Act 1993 
(hereinafter called “the MDA Act”) were flouted by the Board of 
Revenue, the Malir Development Authority and Bahria Town. But all 
the three stated to have stayed within the purview and periphery of 
the enactments mentioned above.     
2. 
 
Mr. Farooq H. Naek, the learned Sr. ASC appearing on 
behalf of the Board of Revenue, contended that the entire process 
underlying exchange conforms to the relevant dispensation; that 
Malir Development Authority Ordinance, 1993 was promulgated 
which was replaced by the Malir Development Authority Act, 1993 
(Act XI of 1994); that Malir Development Authority has been 
established under Section 3 of the MDA Act; that the Authority has 
been constituted under Section 4 of the MDA Act which is consisting 
of a Chairman and other members as described in the said provision; 
what is controlled area, what is a Master Programme and what is a 
scheme have been defined in Section 2 of the MDA Act, what are 
the functions of the Authority and how schemes for development of 
an area are prepared and how the improvement in the socio-
economic conditions of the people is brought about, what measures 
are taken by the Authority for carrying out the purposes of the MDA 
Act and how the land vested in it can be disposed of by sale, lease, 
exchange or otherwise have been provided in Section 8 of the MDA 
Act; that the Authority under Section 14 of the MDA Act has the 
power to declare an area to be a controlled area if it becomes 
necessary for the prevention of haphazard growth, encroachment 
and unauthorized construction, etc. and that the Authority has also 
power 
to 
prepare 
Master 
Programme 
for 
development, 
improvement, expansion and beautification of such area or such 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
11
sectors of economy if it is necessary in the opinion of the Authority or 
the Government. The Authority, the learned Sr. ASC added, may and 
if directed by the Government shall prepare specific scheme or 
schemes for controlled areas or part thereof in such form and 
manner as may be prescribed by Section 17 of the MDA Act; that all 
the schemes prepared under the MDA Act and operated by or on 
behalf of the Authority shall be deemed to be schemes for public 
purpose under Section 25 of the MDA Act and that the Authority has 
the power to acquire by purchase, lease or exchange any 
moveable or immovable property or any interest therein by entering 
into an agreement with the party concerned under Section 31 of the 
MDA Act and that if that cannot be done under the aforesaid 
section, the Authority can acquire land in accordance with the 
provisions of Hyderabad Development Authority Act as is provided 
by section 32 of the MDA Act.  The provisions of the COGLA 1912, the 
learned Sr. ASC maintained, do not have much bearing on the 
provisions contained in the Malir Development Authority Act. The 
learned Sr. ASC next contended that even COGLA 1912 provides for 
incremental housing which means a housing scheme sponsored by 
the government, authority, autonomous body or a company for 
providing residential land to a family not exceeding 120 yards. 
Section 10 of COGLA 1912, the learned Sr. ASC maintained, provides 
for grant of land to any person in a colony; that sub-section 10 (2A) 
of COGLA 1912 starting with non-obstante clause provides that the 
land granted under section 10 shall not be exchangeable with 
private or kabuli land but it would not be of much significance when 
the provisions of the MDA Act, rules and regulations framed 
thereunder, in view of section 47 of the MDA Act, would have effect 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
12
notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, rules or 
regulations. Section 10-A of COGLA 1912, the learned Sr. ASC 
argued, also provides that no land shall be disposed of except by 
the government in accordance with the provisions of COGLA 1912 to 
an autonomous body, authority, company, a person or group of 
persons save as otherwise provided under section 10-A (2). The 
learned ASC next contended that the MDA being a purchaser 
having paid the entire amount of purchase money could not be 
deemed to be a tenant in terms of section 15 of COGLA 1912, 
therefore it could exchange the land so granted to it with private or 
kabuli land notwithstanding the provision contained in section 10 
(2A) and proviso to section 17 of COGLA.  The learned Sr. ASC next 
contended that after the insertion of (ff) in Section 2 of the MDA Act 
through an Amending Act of 2013 the expression “consolidation” 
means adjustment by way of exchange or otherwise for the purpose 
of the scheme, therefore, it has to be taken as such while dealing 
with the controversy raised in this case. The learned Sr. ASC next 
contended that nothing in the Transfer of the Property Act 1882 
would apply or be deemed ever to have applied to any grant or 
other transfer of land or of any interest therein by or on behalf of the 
Government to or in favour of any person, therefore, any transfer or 
adjustment in violation of the said Act cannot be held to be illegal or 
against law. Malir Development Authority, the learned Sr. ASC stated 
at the bar is carrying out various schemes such as Shah Latif Town, 
New Malir Housing Project and Taiser Town by exchanging the 
government land granted under section 10 of COGLA 1912 with 
private or kabuli land, therefore, exchange of land granted to the 
MDA with private or kabuli land is not something unusual or 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
13
unprecedented. Another objective underlying such schemes, the 
learned Sr. ASC added, is to ensure planned development and 
avoid mushroom growth of housing schemes or at random 
construction of houses. The learned Sr. ASC next contended that how 
land is to be disposed of and what are the restrictions on its disposal 
have been provided in paragraph 4 of the notification No. 09-294-03-
SO-I/336, dated 25.02.2006 issued by the Government of Sindh under 
Section 10(2) of the COGLA, 1912; what is the procedure for 
determination of market price has been highlighted in paragraph 
8(1)(a)(b) and 8(2)(i)(ii)(iii) and how the Price Committee submits its 
recommendations to the Scrutiny Committee has been provided by 
paragraph 8(3) of the statement of conditions issued in 2006. The 
learned Sr. ASC next contended that the notification mentioned 
above was modified vide notification No.09-294-03/SO-I/719 dated 
10.11.2010, whereunder constitution of the Land Reservation and 
Allotment Committee was provided as is evident from paragraph 3 
of the notification. The learned Sr. ASC next contended that the 
Board of Revenue also has the power to reserve and grant the land 
and that reservation and grant are regulated by law. The process of 
reservation, grant, consolidation, exchange and disposal of land is 
not unprecedented and that all the decisions taken in this behalf are 
reflected in the summary of the Chief Minister; that a meeting was 
convened on 24.01.2014 wherein the Authority was requested to 
accord approval regarding the work already done and prepare 
schemes for execution of Master Programme of 32 out of 43 villages; 
that the Authority accordingly approved a proposal as described in 
item No. 1; that the Authority also approved item No. 2 for 
consolidation, exchange and adjustment of private ownership with 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
14
state land; that the Director General, MDA in his note dated 
01.01.2015 highlighted the approval of the competent authority i.e. 
the Chief Minister, Sindh regarding the reservation of 14617 acres of 
State Land in favour of MDA for public purpose on price; that the 
land so reserved for MDA was mutated in favour of the MDA as was 
communicated by the Deputy Commissioner, Malir vide letter dated 
28.01.2014 with the request to approach Member Utilization 
Department, Board of Revenue, Sindh for payment of price as per 
procedure 
agreed 
upon 
in 
the 
meeting 
held 
under 
the 
Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, Sindh on 23.01.2014. The 
request, learned Sr. ASC stated, for fixation of price amounting to 
Rs.1,25,000/- per acre was also forwarded. The learned Sr. ASC next 
contended that summary for the Chief Minister would also show the 
name of the village, area in acres N.C.No., category, market price 
per acre notified in the years 2011 and 2012, total market price and 
final approval of the Chief Minister. The learned Sr. ASC next 
contended that MDA has made payment of Rs. 1.66 Billion to the 
Board of Revenue for the land measuring 11068 acres in five villages 
namely, Karkharo, Langheji, Konkar, Kathore and Bolhari at the rate 
of 25% of market price out of the nine villages measuring 14617 acres. 
The learned Sr. ASC went on to argue that the entire process of the 
land adjustment has been transparent as it was made after due 
publication in various newspapers and that the rights of MDA and 
the interest of government have been fully protected at every step. 
The learned Sr. ASC lastly contended that where price of the land 
has been paid, mere fact that conveyance deed has not been 
executed would not affect the sale. Learned ASC by referring to the 
chart describing the categories of the land and their prices fixed in 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
15
2006 and then in 2011 contended that the latter are on lower side 
but they were perfectly justified by the ground realities as no town 
builder in view of the prices fixed in 2006 came forward to invest in 
the building project. The learned Sr. ASC by elaborating his 
arguments contended that the aforesaid rationalization being in 
conformity with the prices of similar land in the market has been 
rightly accepted by the Chief Minister Sindh.   
3. 
 
Mr. Ali Zafar, the learned ASC for the Bahria Town 
highlighted the necessity of adjustment of property, the quality and 
quantity of the land owned by the government and the quality and 
quantity of the land exchanged therefor and the purpose behind 
such exchange. The learned ASC by referring to the provisions 
already referred to by the learned Sr. ASC for the Board of Revenue 
sought to canvass at the bar that the adjustment of the property has 
been made strictly in accordance with the provisions of MDA Act 
and in accordance with law and policy as notified in the year 2006 
and modified in 2010 and that the complaints against the Board 
being frivolous be dismissed; The learned ASC maintained that it is 
the discretion of the government to give any property to any 
development authority gratis or for a price fixed in accordance with 
law; that an area of 7068 acres has already been exchanged while 
an area of 2339 acres is in process of being exchanged and that this 
is not something unprecedented as New Malir Housing Scheme, Shah 
Latif Housing Scheme and Taiser Town have mainly been built up by 
following a similar pattern. Preamble of the MDA Act, the learned 
ASC contended provides for the development of certain areas of 
Karachi Division and improvement of the socio-economic conditions 
of the people and this is what the provisions of the Act aim at and 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
16
this is what the Bahria Town strives for. The learned ASC next 
contended that an apple for an apple and an orange for an orange 
have been exchanged and that in case the property owned by the 
government is found to have a better status, differential could be 
paid by the respondent. The learned ASC lastly contended that the 
process of consolidation which includes adjustment and exchange 
has been resorted to because the MDA did not have sufficient funds 
to start with the project and that it has been ensured that everything 
be done transparently which can well be gathered from the fee 
paid in billion by the Bahria Town to the Government and the MDA.  
4. 
 
Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan, learned Sr. ASC appearing on behalf of 
the persons exchanging private land with MDA supported the 
arguments of Mr. Ali Zafar, learned ASC for the Bahria Town, by 
adding that after the insertion of (ff) in Section 2 of the Malir 
Development Authority Act through an Amending Act of 2013, the 
expression consolidation has been given wider ring and connotation, 
therefore, it has to be read accordingly. The learned Sr. ASC 
contended that the enterprise of the Bahria Town consisting in 
building planned towns with ideal surroundings, green areas, 
stadium, five star hotels, etc. is perfectly in accordance with law; that 
entire property for building the town has been acquired in conformity 
with the modes recognized by law; that even if the Court at any 
stage gathers the impression that the price charged from the 
respondent is on the lower side that could be ignored. The learned Sr. 
ASC to support his contention placed reliance on the cases of 
Government of Punjab. Vs. M/s Crescent Textile Mills (PLD 2004 SC 
108) and Dr. Akhtar Hassan Khan and others. Vs. Federation of 
Pakistan and others (2012 SCMR 455). The learned Sr. ASC next 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
17
contended that if by any means the Court comes to the conclusion 
that price of the property acquired by the respondent is less than the 
price then prevailing in the market, the respondent is willing to make 
up the deficiency.   
 
5. 
 
We have gone through the record carefully and 
considered the submissions of learned ASCs for the parties.  
6. 
 
The main issue raised in this case is that enormous tracts 
of government land were granted by the Board of Revenue to the 
MDA for launching incremental housing scheme. The MDA instead of 
launching the scheme on the land thus granted, exchanged it with 
the Bahria Town through its henchmen. Having thus placed, the 
Bahria Town proceeded to launch a scheme of its own. MDA 
defended the grant as well as exchange mentioned above. Bahria 
Town also defended the grant of the land and its exchange with the 
private land by seeking refuge under the provisions of the MDA Act 
providing for declaration of controlled area, preparation of Master 
Programme and scheme for a controlled area or part thereof. It also 
defended its scheme by referring to section 17(2) of the MDA Act as 
the Authority under the aforesaid provision has been given discretion 
to assist in the preparation of any scheme on the request of any local 
council, government agency, society, any person or body of persons 
on such terms and conditions which may be settled between them. 
While considering the issues raised before us and analyzing the 
viability of the defence, we have to see how the things originated, 
progressed and reached the desired culmination. The first step in this 
behalf is the declaration of controlled area. The relevant provision 
dealing with declaration of an area to be a controlled area is section 
14 of the MDA Act which deserves a look and thus reads as under: 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
18
“14. The Authority may, by notification, declare any area under 
jurisdiction of Authority to be controlled area and issue such 
directions and do such things as may be necessary for the 
prevention 
of 
haphazard 
growth, 
encroachments, 
unauthorized constructions or operations in such area and for 
planned growth of the area.”  
 
What does the Authority consist of has been provided in section 4 of 
the MDA Act which reads as under: - 
“4. 1[“(1) The Authority shall consist of—  
 
(a) Minister for Local Government, Public 
Health Engineering, Rural Development 
and Housing Town Planning, Sindh  
 
Chairman 
(b) One Local Member of the Provincial 
Assembly to be nominated by  
Government  
Member 
 
(c) Secretary, Local Government, Public 
Health Engineering, Rural Development 
and Housing Town Planning 
Department 
 
Member 
 
(d) Commissioner, Karachi  
 
Member 
 
(e) Managing Director, Karachi Water and 
Sewerage Board  
 
Member 
 
(f) Director General Malir Development 
Authority  
 
Member/ 
Secretary 
 
(g) Two Person to be nominated by 
Government (one Technocrat and one 
from the Civil Society)”] 
 
Member 
  
(2) The Chairman shall be appointed by Government who 
shall hold office of a period of three years unless he resigns or is 
removed earlier.  
 
(3) A non-official member shall hold office for a period of 
three years unless he resigns or is removed earlier.  
 
(4) A non-official member may, at any time, by wiring 
under his hand addressed to Government resign his membership 
and the resignation shall take effect from the date on which it is 
accepted.  
 
(5) A casual vacancy in the office of non-official member 
shall be filed in accordance with sub-section (1) and the 
member so appointed shall hold office for the un-expired portion 
of the term of such vacancy.”  
 
A bare reading of the provisions reproduced above shows that the 
power to declare an area to be a controlled area lies with the 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
19
Authority. The Authority is consisting of a Chairman, members of the 
Provincial Assembly of the area and many others as listed above. 
How a matter required to be decided by the Authority would be 
decided by the Authority has been provided in section 9 of the MDA 
Act which reads as under:  
“9. (1) Any matter required to be decided by the Authority shall 
be decided in a meeting of the Authority presided over by the 
Chairman, by vote of majority of the members present in such 
meeting. 
 
(2) Each member shall have one vote; provided that in case of 
a tie, the Chairman shall exercise a casting vote. 
 
(3) One-third of the total members shall form a quorum for a 
meeting of the Authority. 
 
(4) The Authority shall meet at such place and time and in such 
manner as it may prescribe.” 
 
Who issued the notification dated 26.12.2013 declaring 43 villages as 
a controlled area is evident from the notification which reads as 
under:  
 
    “BOARD OF 
REVENUE, SINDH 
GOVERNMENT OF SINDH 
   
NOTIFICATION  
 
No.PS/SMBR/BOR/KAR/430, Karachi dated 26th December 2013. 
In exercise of the powers conferred under section 16(1) of the 
Malir Development Authority Act, 1993, the Government of 
Sindh has been pleased to allow Malir Development Authority 
to get physical survey and preparation of Road Network / Land 
used plan of the following notified dehs under its jurisdiction as 
controlled area for adjustment of affected private / acquired 
state land for development purpose through consultant so that 
proper planning and development scenario of the area is 
generated. 
 
1.  Lohar Kolang.  
 
2.  Mitha Ghar.  
3.  Katore 
4.  Ghaghar.  
 
 
5.  Dhabeji. 
 
6.  Khadeji. 
7.  Allah Phal.  
 
 
8.  Shah Mureed. 
9.  Dhando. 
10.  Narathar. 
 
 
11.  Konkar.   
12.  Darsano Channa 
13.  Tore  
 
 
14.  Mahyo.  
15.  Bazar 
16.  Shahi Chib.  
 
17. Langheji.  
18.  Bolhari 
19.  Chuhar. 
 
 
20.  Amilano  
21.  Bayal 
22.  Karamtani-Lat 
 
23.  Bhad 
 
24.  Abdar 
25.  Mandro. 
 
 
26.  Moidan  
27.  Gadap 
28.  Khar  
 
 
29.  Sundi 
 
30.  Kharkharo 
31.  Tarari. 
 
 
32.  Jhunjhar  
33.  Malh 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
20
34.  Lusar  
 
 
35.  Shoring  
36.  Hidarwah 
37.  Mehar Jabol. 
 
38.  Kund 
 
39.  Jung Khund 
40.  Shore Kundi. 
 
41.  Wan Kund 
42.  Sanharo. 
43.  Koteiro. 
 
 
 
The authority shall prepare specific, scheme or schemes for 
execution of the Master Programme in accordance with 
M.D.A. Act, 1993 amended Act, 2013, specified in Chapter-III 
and IV of the Act ibid, provided all codal formalities are 
completed as per law and policy.  
 
 
The Malir Development Authority and Revenue Authorities 
shall update the record of rights and keep entries in the 
computerized registers in the future, and so also safeguard the 
interest of the Government of Sindh.  
 
 
The concerned Deputy Commissioners and MDA shall 
update and sign the notification plan maps provided by MDA 
in light of the provisions of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967. 
The signed copies of the maps and master plan may be sent to 
Board of Revenue, Sindh, as and when this exercise is 
completed.  
 
 
The Malir Development Authority shall abide by all enforced 
laws of the Provincial Government, directions and policies from 
time to time given by Government of Sindh.  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
      Sd/- 
                      Senior Member 
  
 
 
 
 
 
   Board of Revenue, Sindh. 
 
      No.PS/SMBR/BOR/KAR/430- Karachi dated: 26th December, 2013.  
      A copy is forwarded for information and necessary action to : 
 
 
     1. The Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, Karachi. 
     2. The Principal Secretary, to Governor of Sindh, Karachi. 
     3. The Principal Secretary to Chief Minister, Sindh, Karachi.  
     4. The Administrative Secretaries to G.O.S, ………….. (All in Sindh). 
     5. The Chairman, CMITE and IT, Karachi.  
     6. The Chairman Anti-Corruption and Enquiries, Sindh, Karachi.  
     7. The Director General, Malir Development Authority, Karachi.  
     8. The Inspector General of Registration, Sindh, Karachi with 
directions to bound down the Sub-Registrars to follow the 
above direction, while executing the documents.  
     9. The Commissioner. ………………………. (All in Sindh). 
     10. The Deputy Commissioner ………………( All in Sindh).  
     11. The P.S. to Minister, Local Govt. Karachi.  
     12. The Section Officer (L&C), Local Govt. Deptt: Karachi, with 
reference to his letter No.SO(L&C), HTP/MDA/9-37/2013, Dated: 
24 December, 2013. 
    13. The Superintendent Govt. Printing Press, Karachi for publication
 
 in next gazette. 
    14. The P.S. to Secretary, Local Govt. Deptt: Karachi.  
 
  Sd/- 
        Section Officer (Admn) 
      Board of Revenue, Sindh.” 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
21
The notification reproduced above shows that it was issued by the 
Senior Member Board of Revenue who does not figure anywhere in 
the entire scheme in general and section 14 of the MDA Act in 
particular. What canons of law and jurisprudence would justify an 
out-right departure from the provisions of the MDA Act has not been 
explained anywhere. What would be the value of such notification 
and what effect such declaration would have when it stemmed from 
a person who has no power and authority to issue it has been rather 
glossed over. What has stunned and startled us is that the notification 
thus issued has heavily been banked upon. A corrigendum at a later 
stage has been issued showing that the notification dated 26.12.2013 
was indeed issued by the Secretary Local Government and Housing 
Town Planning Department, Government of Sindh but he too being a 
nonentity in the MDA Act neither has the power to declare an area 
to be a controlled area nor issue a corrigendum. When the basic 
notification has not been issued by the Authority in terms of section 4, 
9 and 14 of the MDA Act, any structure raised thereon would 
automatically collapse. Reference could well be made to the 
judgement rendered in the case of Yousaf Ali  v. Muhammad Aslam 
Zia and 2 others (PLD 1958 SC 104). 
7. 
 
What is a Master Programme; how and when it was 
prepared; what is its tangible form; what is its description in words 
and who approved it; what is a scheme, how has it been prepared, 
what does it consist of in terms of section 17(3), where has it been 
described in words and figures within the framework of the MDA Act 
have been asked time and again but none of the learned ASCs 
representing the parties bothered to answer the questions with 
reference to documents on the record. Land was reserved for MDA 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
22
as is apparent from the summary moved in this behalf. It was 
approved by the Chief Minister on 24.1.2014 but preparation of the 
Master Programme and schemes conforming thereto never saw the 
light of the day. A map at page 380 of CMA 1691/2018 was referred 
to with the marginal notes. We with the assistance of the learned 
ASCs for the parties tried to decipher the Master Programmes and 
the schemes therefrom but we could not find any. Learned ASC 
appearing on behalf of the Bahria Town contended that the Master 
Programmes or for that matter the schemes may not be palpable on 
the map but this Court while examining the entire spectrum 
projected in the case could suggest ways and means by stepping 
into the shoes of the Authority. Such approach, the learned ASC 
added, has to be adopted when this Court intervenes through an 
inquisitorial proceeding under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the 
Islamic Republic of Pakistan to ensure proper development of the 
area and betterment of the people. This argument of the Learned 
ASC for the Bahria Town is quite tempting but what we have to see 
at the moment is whether the provisions of law providing for the 
preparation of the Master Programme and schemes were adhered 
to? Our answer to the question is in the negative as the MDA, without 
preparing the Master Programme and scheme worth the name, let 
the Bahria Town initiate and embark upon an adventure of its own.  
8. 
 
Let us now see the tenability of the defence set up by 
the Bahria Town in terms of section 17(2) of the MDA Act. Before we 
discuss this aspect of the case it is worthwhile to refer to section 17(2) 
which reads as under: 
“Section 17(2)—The Authority may, on the request of any 
Local Council, Government agency, society or any person 
or body of persons, assist in preparation of, or caused to be 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
23
prepared, any scheme on such terms and conditions as 
may be settled between them.” 
 
This provision, so to say, provides for the assistance of the Authority on 
the request of any Local Council, government agency, society or 
any person or body of persons in the preparation of schemes on such 
terms and conditions as may be settled between them. But when did 
the managers of the Bahria Town request the Authority for assistance 
in the preparation of scheme and what terms and conditions have 
been settled in between them in this behalf has not been adverted 
to in the concise statement or during the course of the arguments 
nor their existence has been substantiated at any stage. How could 
the Authority own or espouse a scheme of the Bahria Town, which 
was prepared by the latter on its own without the assistance of the 
former in terms of Section 17(2) of MDA Act and how could this 
scheme be held to have been prepared, undertaken or executed 
under this Act in terms of Section 2(p) of the MDA Act are the 
questions which went uncommented. All this points to the conclusion 
as if the Bahria Town is the Authority and the Authority is just a pawn 
or a plaything in its hands. 
9. 
 
Next comes the grant of land to MDA by the Board of 
Revenue and its exchange with private or kabuli land. What is the 
mode of grant of government land, what are the provisions 
regulating it and who are the persons such land could be granted to 
are pivotal questions whose answers can well be found in section 10 
of COGLA 1912 which reads as under:  
“10.    Issue of statements of conditions of tenancies. – (1) 
The Board of Revenue subject to the general approval of the 
Government may grant land in a colony to any person on such 
conditions as it thinks fit. 
 
      (2)  The Provincial Government may issue a statement or 
statements of the conditions on which it is willing to grant land in 
a colony to tenants. 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
24
   
 (2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or 
sub-section (2), such land shall, not be exchangeable with 
private or kabuli land. 
     
  (3)  Where such statements of conditions have been issued, 
the Collector may, subject to the control of the [Board of 
Revenue], allot land to any person, to be held subject to such 
statement or conditions issued under sub-section (2) of this 
section, as the Collector may by written order declare to be 
applicable to the case. 
       
   (4)  No person shall be deemed to be a tenant or to have any 
right or title in the land allotted to him until such a written order 
has been passed and he has taken possession of the land with 
the permission of the Collector. After possession has been so 
taken, the grant shall be held subject to the conditions declared 
applicable thereto. 
 
(5) If a person who has been granted, allotted or leased out, 
land after applicability of this Act to the Province of Sindh, or a 
person who may be granted land under this Act hereinafter for 
specific purpose has –  
 
(a) failed to deposit the occupancy price within a period of six 
months after the issuance of offer letter or allotment letter 
regarding grant, allotment or lease of land, such offer letter or 
allotment letter shall automatically stand withdrawn and shall 
not be restored; provided that the grantee, allotee or leasee 
may apply afresh for grant, allotment or lease of the land and 
the Competent Authority may make a fresh grant, allotment or 
lease as the case may be; and 
 
(b) failed to use the land for the purpose for which it was 
granted or allotted or converted or leased out and the period of 
five years from the date of grant, allotment, conversion or lease 
has expired, the grant, allotment conversion or lease of the land 
shall automatically stand cancelled and the amount deposited 
shall stand forfeited: 
  
 
           Provided that the competent authority may extend the 
period for one year more in the justified cases on payment of ten 
percent (10%) of the occupancy prices 
  
 
          Provided further that the Chief Minister may extend the 
period of completion of projects in respect of land granted for 
education and health purposes in the cases where the delay in 
completion of project is not on account of any negligence of 
part of grantee.” 
 
A careful examination of the section reproduced above shows that 
the government land could be granted to any person or tenant 
subject to the statement of conditions issued under section 10(2) of 
the said Act. Statement of conditions were purportedly issued under 
section 10(2) of COGLA 1912 by Government of Sindh, Land 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
25
Utilization Department vide notification no. 09-294-03-SO-I/336, 
Karachi dated 25th February 2006 and notification no. 09-294-03/SO-
I/719, Karachi dated 10th November 2010. Land in this case has been 
granted to MDA under section 10 of COGLA 1912. It in its essence 
and substance is tenancy and not proprietary on any account as 
proprietary rights to a tenant or any other person could be granted 
under section 30 of COGLA 1912 but since section 30 has been 
omitted from the said Act by Sindh Repealing and Amending Act 
1975 (Sindh Act XVII of1975) such rights cannot be granted to any.   
10. 
 
Now the question arises whether a land granted under 
section 10 of COGLA 1912 could be exchanged with a private or 
kabuli land. Our answer to the question is a pointblank no, because 
section 10(2A) which has been given overriding effect over section 
10(1) and 10(2) of COGLA 1912 provides in unequivocal terms that a 
land granted to any person under section 10 of COGLA 1912 is not 
exchangeable with a private or kabuli land. Section 17 of COGLA 
1912, however, permits the exchange of tenancy for tenancy but 
does not permit the exchange of tenancy with private or kabuli land. 
The rationale behind this provision is that a land comprised in 
tenancy cannot be equal to the one comprised in proprietary. When 
the land comprised in tenancy is not equal to private or kabuli land, 
it cannot be exchanged with the other. Where a land granted under 
section 10 of the Act cannot be exchanged with private or kabuli 
land, its exchange being against law would be void ab initio. The 
learned Sr. ASC for the Board, in his effort to extricate the MDA and 
even the Bahria Town from the clutches of this prohibition referred to 
section 8(2)(iii), section 31 and 32 of the MDA Act and thereby 
sought to canvass at the bar that the aforesaid provisions in view of 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
26
section 47 of the MDA Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything 
contained in any other law, rules or regulation. Before we deal with 
this argument it would be imperative to refer to the aforesaid 
provisions:    
“Section 8 (2) The Authority may— 
 
 (ii) acquire permanently or requisition temporarily property 
movable or immovable; 
 
 (iii) dispose any land or other property vested in it by sale, 
lease exchange or otherwise. 
 
Section 31 — The Authority may, by purchase, lease or 
exchange, acquire any movable or immovable property or 
any interest therein by entering into an agreement with the 
party concerned. 
 
Section 32 – Where the Authority is of the opinion that nay land 
needed for any scheme or other public purpose cannot be 
acquired under section 31, such land may be acquired in 
accordance with the Hyderabad Development Authority Act, 
1976 and any reference in that Act to the Hyderabad 
Development Authority shall be deemed to be a reference to 
the Authority” 
 
A look at section 8(2)(ii), section 31 and section 32 of the MDA Act 
reveals that the Authority has the power to acquire permanently any 
moveable or immoveable property by purchase, lease or exchange 
by entering into an agreement with the party concerned or in 
accordance with the provisions of the Hyderabad Development 
Authority Act 1976. Any property thus acquired would vest in the 
Authority which shall be free to dispose it of by sale, lease, exchange 
or otherwise in terms of section 8(2)(iii) of the MDA Act. But since the 
land granted to the Authority under section 10 of the COGLA 1912 is 
comprised in tenancy and not proprietary it cannot be said to have 
vested in the Authority. Since it cannot be said to have vested in the 
Authority, it could not dispose of such land by sale, lease, exchange 
or otherwise. Therefore, any disposal in any of the modes mentioned 
above would be void ab initio. In the case of Abdul Haq and others v 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
27
Province of Punjab and others (2007 SMCR 1525) this Court while 
dealing with a similar situation held as under:   
“A careful scrutiny of record would reveal that the said order 
had been passed by the learned Commissioner Sargodha 
Division in a casual and cursory manner without diligent 
application of mind by ignoring the fact that the State land 
could not have been exchanged with private land situated in 
Chak No. 40-A/M.B., proprietary rights whereof were obtained 
by the appellants about thirteen years back and mutations 
were also attested in their favour and duly registered in the 
Register Haqdaran Zamin. The closed and past transaction 
could not have been reopened by the Commissioner 
Sargodha Division having no locus standi whatsoever which 
amounts to misuse and abuse of authority never conferred 
upon him. The Commissioner Sargodha Division has violated 
the Government instructions contained in letter No. 1841-C 
dated 28-4-1932 which makes it abundantly clear that once 
the proprietary rights have been acquired in a grant no 
application for exchange could be entertained. For the sake of 
argument if it is conceded that the allocation of land in favour 
of appellants was not “by way of grant” even then State land 
pertained to Agriculture Department could not have been 
transferred with private land, proprietary rights whereof had 
been conferred upon the appellants. Besides that the 
Commissioner Sargodha Division has ignored the provision 
enumerated in section 17 of Colonization of Government Lands 
Act 1912 whereby only the State land can be exchanged for 
State 
land 
and 
therefore, 
the 
order 
passed 
by 
the 
Commissioner Sargodha Division was in utter violation of 
section 17 of Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912.” 
  
The argument of the learned Sr. ASC for the Board that MDA being a 
purchaser having paid the entire amount of the purchase money 
cannot be deemed to be a tenant, therefore, it could exchange the 
land granted with private or kabuli land notwithstanding the 
provision contained in section 10(2A) and proviso to section 17 of 
COGLA, would have been tenable had the proprietary rights been 
granted to it. But since the provision providing for the grant of 
proprietary rights has been omitted by virtue of the amendment 
mentioned above, this argument being shorn of force cannot be 
accepted. The argument that MDA is carrying out various schemes 
such as Shah Latif Town, New Malir Housing Project and Taiser Town 
by exchanging the government land granted under section 10 of 
COGLA 1912 with private or kabuli land, therefore, exchange of land 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
28
granted to the MDA with private or kabuli land is not something 
unusual or unprecedented has not moved us because nothing has 
been brought on the record to show that land granted under section 
10 of COGLA 1912 was ever exchanged with private or kabuli land. 
In case it is correct, two or any number of wrongs cannot justify 
another wrong or make it right. The argument that nothing in the 
Transfer of the Property Act would apply or be deemed ever to have 
applied to any grant or other transfer of land or of any interest 
therein by or on behalf of the Government to or in favour of any 
person, therefore, any transfer or adjustment in violation of the said 
Act cannot be held to be illegal or against law has no perceptible 
relevance to the controversy raised in this case as exchange in this 
case is illegal in view of the provisions contained in COGLA 1912 and 
not in view of the provisions contained in Transfer of Property Act.     
11. 
 
Now let us see what was the purpose behind the grant 
of this land? We have been told time and again that the purpose 
behind the grant of this land to MDA is to launch an incremental 
housing scheme. Where does the ‘incremental housing scheme’ 
come from and what does it stand for? This scheme, so to speak, was 
introduced by substituting section 3 and adding section 10-A to 
section 10-F in COGLA through The Colonization of Government 
Lands (Sindh Amendment) Ordinance, 2005, Sindh Ordinance No. XIII 
of 2005. But it being promulgated by the Governor of Sindh under 
Article 128 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, was 
not a permanent legislation. Nor was it made an Act of the Provincial 
Assembly. It, therefore, stood repealed after the expiration of 90 
days. With the repeal of the Ordinance, the Act was restored to its 
original position as it stood before the promulgation of the 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
29
Ordinance. The incremental housing scheme and whatever was 
provided in section 3 and Section10-A to Section 10-F of the 
Ordinance disappeared altogether. However, in the statement of 
conditions 
many 
other 
terms 
with 
their 
meanings 
besides 
‘incremental housing scheme’ have again been introduced in 
paragraph 2 of the statement of conditions which being relevant for 
the purposes of this case are reproduced as under: 
2. In this statement of conditions, unless there is anything 
repugnant in the subject or context: - 
 
(a) "Act" means the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 
1912; 
 
(b) “amenity purpose” means a use of plot of land for park, 
garden playground, graveyard, educational institution, health 
institution, reading rood, library, community centre and place 
for religious worship; 
 
 (c) “authority” means a development authority established by 
Government under any law for the time being in force; 
 
(d) “autonomous body” means an autonomous body under 
the control of Government established under a law and 
includes an authority but does not include a council; 
 
(e) “commercial purpose” means a plot of land used or to be 
used for the Government; 
 
(f) “company” means a company registered under Companies 
Ordinance 1984;  
 
(g) “council” means a council constituted under the Sindh 
Local Government Ordinance, 2001;  
 
(h)“District Officer Revenue” means the District Officer 
(Revenue) as described in the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967 
and includes:- 
 
(i) 
any officer appointed by the Board of Revenue 
to perform all or any of the functions and exercise all 
or any of the powers of the District Officer (revenue) 
under this Act; and 
 
(ii) 
any 
Colonization 
Officer 
or 
Assistant 
Colonization Officer appointed as such before the 
commencement of this Act, whether or not such 
officer was by notification appointed to perform all or 
any of the functions of a Deputy Commissioner under 
the Act hereby repealed; 
 
(i) “Executive District Officer (Revenue)” includes any officer 
appointed by the Board of Revenue to perform all or any of 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
30
the functions and exercise all or any of the powers of a 
Executive District Officer (Revenue) under this Act;  
 
(j) “flat site” means any plot of land used or to be used for 
constructing residential flats;  
 
(k) “Government” means the Government of Sindh;  
 
(l) “incremental housing” means a housing scheme sponsored 
by the Government, or an authority, or an autonomous body or 
a company for providing residential land to a family not 
exceeding 120 square yards; 
 
(m) “industrial purpose” means use of a plot of land as:- 
a) 
a cottage, small, medium and large industry or  
b) 
an Industrial Estate or  
c) 
an Information Technology Park or  
d) 
tourism including hotels that offer lodgings;  
 
(n) “land” means lands vesting in Government, authority or 
autonomous body and includes lands is used and may be used 
for agricultural, commercial, residential, residential cum 
commercial, industrial and amenity purposes;  
 
(o) “market price” means market price and includes 
occupancy value of the land prevailing at the time of disposal 
of the land by the Government under this Act;  
 
(p) “occupancy price” means the price paid by the occupant 
of Govt. land granted for non-agricultural purpose or a period 
not exceeding ninety nine years;  
 
(q) 
“project” 
means 
commercial, 
incremental 
housing, 
residential, flat site, residential-cum commercial industrial and 
amenity projects for which land is granted;  
 
(r) “residential cum commercial land” means use of land for 
construction of flats, shops and or private or public offices;  
 
(s) “residential land” means use of a plot of land for 
constructing residential houses;  
 
(t) “grant” means lease of land made under these conditions; 
 
(u) “price committee” means the District Price Committee 
appointed under condition No.8(1)(a); 
 
(v) “scrutiny 
committee” 
means 
by 
Scrutiny 
Committee 
appointed under condition 8(1) (b).” 
 
Addition of the expression amenity purpose, commercial purpose, 
incremental housing, industrial purpose etc and their meanings in 
paragraph 2 shows that the framers of the statement of conditions in 
their wisdom also decided to grant the land for the purposes 
mentioned above. But they instead of using the word ‘grant’ used 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
31
the word ‘dispose’ in paragraph 3 of the notification. The word 
‘dispose’ has not been defined anywhere in the notification, 
therefore, its ordinary dictionary meanings are to be looked into. This 
word according to the Oxford Dictionary means to sell something to 
someone or get rid of it. But this meaning would tend to change the 
meaning of word grant as used in section 10 (2) of COGLA 1912, the 
parent statute which is restricted to grant of tenancy and not sale of 
proprietary. It becomes all the more clearer when the word ‘grant’ 
has also been used in the statement of conditions issued in 2006 and 
has been defined to mean “lease of land under these conditions”. 
The word ‘dispose’, therefore, has to be interpreted in harmony with 
the parent statue or read down as being an addition alien to the 
parent statute. For it is axiomatic and an extensively known principle 
of interpretation of statute that a subordinate legislation has to be 
interpreted in a way which conforms to and stays within the 
parameters of the parent statute. Such interpretation would be in 
harmony with the letter and spirit of section 10 of COGLA 1912 
particularly after the omission of section 30 therefrom as held above. 
We, therefore, hold that the word ‘dispose’ or the word ‘grant’ would 
mean grant of tenancy and not proprietary right.      
12.  
 
Alright with the addition of the expression incremental 
housing scheme to the statement of conditions issued in 2006 the 
land under section 10(2) of the COGLA could be granted for 
launching an incremental housing scheme. The Board, pursuant to 
the aforesaid conditions, granted land to Malir Development 
Authority for launching an incremental housing scheme. The 
Authority after the grant of land should have proceeded to launch 
the scheme itself. But to our regret and surprise, the Authority for the 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
32
reason best known to it rather opted to exchange the land thus 
granted with private or kabuli land purchased by the dummies of the 
Bahria Town before fulfilling the legal formalities and even before 
taking its possession under section 10(4) of COGLA and thereby 
abdicated its authority in favour of the Bahria Town in violation of the 
provisions contained in sections 10(2A) and proviso to section 17 of 
COGLA. Whereas the Bahria Town with all its magical and 
mesmerizing prowess and paraphernalia dropped in the land and 
started the work with goebbelsian fanfare a day after the summary 
reserving the land for MDA was signed which can well be seen from 
the aggressive publicity in the newspapers of the following days. The 
Malir Development Authority which is all in all for the purposes of the 
MDA Act became a conduit to facilitate the designs of the Bahria 
Town. At times the MDA appears to have acted as a property dealer 
and even as a go-between in the deal. Likewise, the government of 
Sindh which is all in all for the purposes of COGLA acted as more of a 
collaborator than a protector of the government land. Grant of land 
to MDA for an incremental housing scheme proved to be a gimmick 
to accomplish the agenda of Malik Riaz aiming at his personal 
enrichment at the cost of the state and the people. It is, thus, a 
brazen betrayal of the trust of the state and the people and a 
blatant fraud on the statute. A business adventure of this type 
cannot be said to have any meaning for the poor people and as 
such cannot be held to have any of the trappings of a public 
purpose.  
13.  
 
We have no doubt in our mind as held above that the 
land granted under section 10 of COGLA 1912 cannot be 
exchanged with private or kabuli land. But even if we assume by 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
33
ignoring the law that the Authority has the power to exchange the 
land granted under section 10 of COGLA 1912 with private or kabuli 
land, what mode was adopted for determining the status and price 
of the government land and that of the one it was exchanged for 
has not been explained by the learned ASCs appearing for the 
Board, MDA and Bahria Town. Nor has anything been brought on the 
record to show that the nature, character, location, potential of the 
land and those of the land it was exchanged for, stand on equal 
footing. There is also nothing on the record to explain why did the 
MDA exchange its compact and well-located blocks of land for 
scattered strips of land situated in far-off areas. What utility such strips 
of land could possibly have for MDA also went unanswered. It was 
stated that MDA paid Rs. 1.66 billion at the rate of 25% of the market 
price for 11068 acres in five villages to the Board and that MDA 
exchanged land measuring 7068 acres in 4 villages namely Bolhari, 
Langheji, Konkar and Kharkharo with henchmen of the Bahria Town 
in 39 villages. The value of the land of MDA in four villages has been 
worked out as Rs. 6.12 Billion (Rs. 6120 million) while the value of the 
land exchanged therefor has been worked out as Rs. 5.859 Billion (Rs. 
5859 Million). The differential between the two has been worked out 
as Rs. 0.26 Billion (Rs. 260 million) out of which Rs. 0.24 Billion (Rs. 240 
Million) has been paid, whereas only Rs. 0.02 billion (Rs. 20 Million) is 
outstanding. But nothing authentic has been brought before us to 
show as to what was the per acre price of the land in the 4 villages 
and what was the per acre price of the land situated in 39 villages. 
When the price of the land in any of the 39 villages has not been 
determined nor has any basis been provided for its determination, 
the differential being worked out at random cannot be given any 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
34
weight. All this shows that neither the Board nor the MDA cared a fig 
while dealing with this aspect. Everything appears to have been 
done mechanically without examining what has been poured in and 
what has been poured out as a result of exchange. How far the MDA 
was guided by its sense of proportion when it exchanged 68-30-19 
acres situated in Langheji for 68-30-19 acres situated in village 
Mandaro, an area bordering Balochistan? What equation the MDA 
saw between 56-36 acres situated in Langheji and an area of 56-36 
acres situated in Ghaghar which is bordering district Thatta to justify 
their exchange? Exchange of the property at Ghaghar for that in 
Langheji would bring the private owner windfall benefits but what 
would it bring the Authority when the area at Ghaghar being far off 
and bordering district Thatta is of no use when viewed in the light of 
the provisions of the MDA Act. An area of 10 acres situated in 
Langheji was exchanged for an area of 10 acres in village Shahi Chip 
which being situated in a far-flung area does not admit of a 
comparison with the area situated in Langheji. What parity did the 
Authority find between an area of 75 acres situated in Langheji and 
an area of 75 acres in Deh Jang Kund, a village situated in an area 
bordering Balochistan? What was common in between an area of 73 
acres situated in Langheji and an area of 73 acres situated in Deh 
Darsano Chano in terms of their nature and location has been left to 
speculation. Likewise, no visible similarity is seen between an area of 
44 acres situated in Langheji and an area of 44 acres situated in 
Dhabheji. An area of 68 acres situated in Bolhari was exchanged for 
an area of 68 acres situated in Deh Tore without ascertaining its 
surrounding and connectivity – the features which always matter in 
determining the status of the land.  These are a few examples which 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
35
go a long way to prove that no homework was done by anybody at 
any level to strike a balance between the input and the output of 
exchange. Determination of differential in the absence of such 
homework would, therefore, be conjectural. A transaction thus 
settled cannot be held to be transparent.  
14.  
 
An effort was made to protect the exchange of tenancy 
with private or kabuli land under the panoply of section 2(ff) of the 
MDA Act without appreciating what does the aforesaid provision 
precisely say. It would, therefore, be worthwhile to refer to the said 
provision which reads as under:  
“2(ff) – consolidation of land means adjustment of plots in 
a scheme by way of exchange or otherwise for the 
purpose of the scheme” 
Even a cursory glance at the aforesaid provision would show that it 
does not deal with the exchange of a land for a land. It indeed deals 
with adjustment of plots in a scheme by way of exchange or 
otherwise. Plot according to the definition as given in Rule 2(j) of the 
Malir Development Authority Disposal of Plot Rules 2006 means: 
“j). 
“Plot” includes a residential plot, residential cum 
commercial plot, industrial plot, commercial plot, or flat 
site in any scheme”. 
The word “adjustment” if seen in the light of the definition as given 
above, by no means covers the exchange of a land for a land in a 
set-up where no scheme has been prepared even in terms of 
conception. Granted, 
that 
The 
Malir 
Development 
Authority 
(Consolidation, Adjustment, Exchange of private survey lands and 
state land) Regulations 2013 provides procedure for exchange of a 
land for a land but it being against the provisions of the parent 
statute cannot be sneaked in when according to the latter the 
expression adjustment means adjustment of plots in a scheme for the 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
36
purposes of the scheme. Reference to section 2(ff) being an attempt 
to clutch at a straw cannot help justify the exchange of a land for a 
land.  
15. 
 
What was the occasion calling for the reduction of the 
prices which were fixed in 2006 notwithstanding the passage of time 
in between 2006 and 2011 brought an exponential increase therein. 
What business the secretariat of the President had in the fixation of 
the prices of the land when the matter relating to land lay within the 
domain of the province? What weighed and proved to be the 
catalyst can well be gathered from the summary which is 
reproduced as under:  
“GOVERNMENT OF SINDH 
          LAND UTILIZATION DEPARTMENT 
 
SUMMARY FOR THE CHIEF MINISTER, SINDH 
 
SUBJECT: 
FIXATION OF RATES OF LAND UNDER CONDITION NO.8(1)(b) OF THE 
STATEMENT OF CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF STATE LAND FOR NON-
AGRICULTURAL 
PURPOSE 
AND 
RECOMMENDED 
THE 
CATEGORIZATION OF GOVERNMENT LAND FOR ALLOTMENT OF 
VARIOUS PURPOSE.  
 
 
The facts of the case are that Chairman Association of Builders and 
Developers of Pakistan (ABAD) has made an application to the Honourable 
President, Republic of Pakistan to rationalize the rates of different Dehs (Annexure-
A). The Deputy Director (HD), President’s Secretariat (Public Aiwan-e-Sadr 
Islamabad has forwarded the same to the Chief Secretary Government of Sindh 
Karachi for such action as deem appropriate as per rule in the matter vide 
President’s Secretariat U.O. No. 10(106)Dir(HD)/2010(11), dated 21.04.2011 
(Annexure-B).  
 
2. 
Scrutiny Committee was constituted under Condition No.8(1)(b) under 
Statement of Conditions and in its meeting held on 18.05.2011 (Annexure-C), the 
Karachi and Association of Builders and Developers of Pakistan (ABAD). After 
thorough deliberations, the Committee has recommended the following 
categorization of land and market price for next three years as provided under the 
said condition:-  
i) 
Categorization of Government land for allotment of various 
purposes was recommended as under:-  
 
Category A-
1: 
Area upto 200 meters falling along with both sides of National, Super 
and Provincial Highways and other roads having widths of 30 feet 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
37
metaled area.  
 
Note:  This category will not be applicable for the allotment of 
industrial purpose. 
Category A: 
Area upto one kilometer beyond the area of Category-A-1. 
 
Note:   Industrial plot falling on Highway/Super Highway shall be 
charged rates of Category “A”. The definition of industrial sites may 
include amusement parks, tourist resorts, hotels and cold storage 
etc which have commercial potential.  
Category B: 
Area upto one kilometer beyond the area of Category-A.  
Category C: 
Area upto one kilometer beyond the area of Category-B.  
 
ii) 
Keeping in view the current market prices, the prices for the 
different dehs were recommended by the Committee as under :-  
 
“GADAP TOWN” 
 
 
Sr. 
No
. 
Name 
of Deh 
Description 
 
Categ
ory 
A-I 
Categ
ory 
A 
Categ
ory 
B 
Categ
ory 
C 
1. 
Bund 
Murad 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
36 Lac 
 
25 Lac 
 
25.2 
Lac 
24 Lac 
 
18 Lac 
 
18 Lac 
14 Lac 
 
12 Lac 
 
12 Lac 
8 Lac 
 
6 Lac 
 
6 Lac 
2. 
Allah 
Phihai 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
30 Lac 
 
25 Lac 
 
25 Lac 
20 Lac 
 
18 Lac 
 
18 Lac 
12 Lac 
 
12 Lac 
 
12 Lac 
6 Lac 
 
6 Lac 
 
6 Lac 
3. 
Khadej
i 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
25 Lac 
 
15 Lac 
 
18 Lac 
15 Lac 
 
10 Lac 
 
15 Lac 
12 Lac 
 
7.5 Lac 
 
8 Lac 
NIL 
 
- 
 
NIL 
4. 
Abdar 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
30 Lac 
 
10 Lac 
 
15 Lac 
15 Lac 
 
7.5 Lac 
 
10 Lac 
10 Lac 
 
5 Lac 
 
8 Lac 
NIL 
 
- 
 
NIL 
5. 
Chuha
r 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
20 Lac 
 
20 Lac 
 
20 Lac 
25 Lac 
 
15 Lac 
 
15 Lac 
15 Lac 
 
10 Lac 
 
10 Lac 
NIL 
 
- 
 
NIL 
6. 
Jam 
Chakr
o 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
30 Lac 
 
25 Lac 
 
20 Lac 
 
15 Lac 
 
15 Lac 
 
10 Lac 
 
NIL 
 
NIL 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
38
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
25 Lac 
15 Lac 
10 Lac 
- 
7. 
Boil 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
 
30 Lac 
 
15 Lac 
 
15 Lac 
15 Lac 
 
10 Lac 
 
10 Lac 
10 Lac 
 
8 Lac 
 
8 Lac 
NIL 
 
NIL 
8. 
Narath
ar 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
30 Lac 
 
20 Lac 
 
20 Lac 
20 Lac 
 
12 Lac 
 
12 Lac 
NIL 
 
10 Lac 
 
10 Lac 
NIL 
 
NIL 
 
- 
9. 
Mitha 
Ghar 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
10 Lac 
 
15 Lac 
 
15 Lac 
5 Lac 
 
10 Lac 
 
10 Lac 
4 Lac 
 
7 Lac 
 
7 Lac 
NIL 
 
NIL 
 
- 
10. 
Mai 
Garhi 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
30 Lac 
 
25 Lac 
 
25 Lac 
20 Lac 
 
15 Lac 
 
15 Lac 
15 Lac 
 
8 Lac 
 
8 Lac 
NIL 
 
NIL 
 
- 
11. 
Tore 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
1 Crore 
 
50 Lac 
 
50 Lac 
75 Lac 
 
40 Lac 
 
40 Lac 
60 Lac 
 
30 Lac 
 
30 Lac 
NIL 
 
NIL 
 
- 
12. 
Konker 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
50 Lac 
 
20 Lac 
 
se Lac 
40 Lac 
 
15 Lac 
 
20 Lac 
30 Lac 
 
10 Lac 
 
15 Lac 
NIL 
 
NIL 
 
- 
13. 
Kharkh
aro 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
70 Lac 
 
35 Lac 
 
35 Lac 
50 Lac 
 
25 Lac 
 
25 Lac 
40 Lac 
 
20 Lac 
 
20 Lac 
NIL 
 
NIL 
 
NIL 
14. 
Mandr
o 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
10 Lac 
 
8 Lac 
 
8 Lac 
8 Lac 
 
5 Lac 
 
6 Lac 
6 Lac 
 
4 Lac 
 
4 Lac 
NIL 
 
NIL 
 
NIL 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
39
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
15. 
Surjani 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
60 Lac 
 
60 Lac 
 
60 Lac 
50 Lac 
 
50 Lac 
 
50 Lac 
30 Lac 
 
30 Lac 
 
30 Lac 
NIL 
 
NIL 
 
NIL 
16. 
Metan 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
30 Lac 
 
20 Lac 
 
25 Lac 
20 Lac 
 
12 Lac 
 
15 Lac 
15 Lac 
 
8 Lac 
 
10 Lac 
NIL 
 
NIL 
 
NIL 
17. 
Gada
p 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
- 
 
8 Lac 
 
8 Lac 
- 
 
5 Lac 
 
5 Lac 
- 
 
3 Lac 
 
4 Lac 
- 
 
NIL 
 
2 Lac 
18. 
Karmat
iani 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
 
- 
 
8 Lac 
 
8 Lac 
- 
 
6 Lac 
 
6 Lac 
- 
 
4 Lac 
 
4 Lac 
- 
 
2 Lac 
 
NIL 
19. 
Shahi 
Chip 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
- 
 
20 Lac 
 
20 Lac 
- 
 
10 Lac 
 
10 Lac 
- 
 
8 Lac 
 
6 Lac 
- 
 
3 Lac 
 
Nil 
20. 
Huder
wah 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
- 
 
15 Lac 
 
15 Lac 
- 
 
10 Lac 
 
10 Lac 
- 
 
7 Lac 
 
7 Lac 
- 
 
NIL 
 
NIL 
21. 
Bolhari 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
- 
 
8 Lac 
 
8 Lac 
- 
 
6 Lac 
 
6 Lac 
- 
 
4 Lac 
 
4 Lac 
- 
 
2 Lac 
 
Nil 
22. 
Langh
eji 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
- 
 
10 Lac 
 
10 Lac 
- 
 
6 Lac 
 
6 Lac 
- 
 
4 Lac 
 
4 Lac 
- 
 
2 Lac 
 
Nil 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
40
23. 
Malh 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
- 
 
40 Lac 
 
50 Lac 
- 
 
30 Lac 
 
40 Lac 
- 
 
20 Lac 
 
20 Lac 
- 
 
Nil 
 
Nil 
24. 
Bazar  
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
- 
 
30 Lac 
 
30 Lac 
- 
 
15 Lac 
 
15 Lac 
- 
 
10 Lac 
 
10 Lac 
- 
 
Nil 
 
Nil 
25. 
Darsan
o 
Chano 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
- 
 
20 Lac 
 
25 Lac 
- 
 
15 Lac 
 
20 Lac 
- 
 
10 Lac 
 
10 Lac 
- 
 
- 
 
Nil 
26. 
Taiser 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
70 Lac 
 
80 Lac 
 
70 Lac 
50 Lac 
 
70 Lac 
 
50 Lac 
40 Lac 
 
60 Lac 
 
40 Lac 
Nil 
 
Nil 
 
Nil 
27. 
Bijar 
Buthi 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
60 Lac 
 
70 Lac 
 
70 Lac 
50 Lac 
 
50 Lac 
 
50 Lac 
40 Lac 
 
40 Lac 
 
40 Lac 
Nil 
 
Nil 
 
Nil 
28. 
Nagan 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
- 
 
60 Lac 
 
60 Lac 
- 
 
50 Lac 
 
50 Lac 
- 
 
40 Lac 
 
40 Lac 
- 
 
Nil 
 
Nil 
29. 
Mokhi 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
 
7.475 
million 
70 Lac 
 
70 Lac 
6.25 
million 
50 Lac 
 
50 Lac 
5.175 
million 
40 Lac 
 
40 Lac 
Nil 
 
Nil 
 
Nil 
30. 
Mangh
opir 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
- 
 
50 Lac 
 
50 Lac 
- 
 
40 Lac 
 
40 Lac 
- 
 
30 Lac 
 
30 Lac 
- 
 
Nil 
 
- 
31. 
Halkan
i 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
50 Lac 
 
40 Lac 
 
20 Lac 
 
Nil 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
41
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
25 Lac 
 
35 Lac 
17 Lac 
 
25 Lac 
12 Lac 
 
15 Lac 
Nil 
 
- 
32. 
Thadh
o 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
- 
 
35 Lac 
 
35 Lac 
- 
 
25 Lac 
 
25 Lac 
- 
 
15 Lac 
 
15 Lac 
- 
 
Nil 
 
- 
33. 
Kathor
e 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
- 
 
50 Lac 
 
60 Lac 
- 
 
40 Lac 
 
40 Lac 
- 
 
20 Lac 
 
20 Lac 
- 
 
10 Lac 
 
10 Lac 
34. 
Amilan
o 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
5.75 
million 
40 Lac 
 
45 Lac 
4.6 
million 
30 Lac 
 
35 Lac 
3.45 
million 
25 Lac 
 
25 Lac 
1.15 
million 
- 
 
Nil 
35. 
Shah 
Muree
d 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
- 
 
25 Lac 
 
25 Lac 
- 
 
15 Lac 
 
17 Lac 
- 
 
10 Lac 
 
10 Lac 
- 
 
Nil 
 
Nil 
36. 
Mahyo 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
30 Lac 
 
25 Lac 
 
25 Lac 
20 Lac 
 
20 Lac 
 
20 Lac 
12 Lac 
 
15 Lac 
 
15 Lac 
6 Lac 
 
10 Lac 
 
10 Lac 
37. 
Lohark
o 
Langh 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
 
8 Lac 
 
8 Lac 
 
8 Lac 
6 Lac 
 
6 Lac 
 
6 Lac 
4 Lac 
 
4 Lac 
 
4 Lac 
Nil  
 
Nil  
 
Nil 
   
“BIN QASIM TOWN” 
 
 
Sr. 
No
. 
Name 
of Deh 
Description 
 
Categ
ory 
A-I 
Categ
ory 
A 
Categ
ory 
B 
Categ
ory 
C 
1. 
Khanto  Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
1 Crore 
 
90 Lac 
 
70 Lac 
 
60 Lac 
 
50 Lac 
 
30 Lac 
 
Nil 
 
Nil 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
42
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
 
90 Lac 
60 Lac 
40 Lac 
Nil 
2. 
Pipri 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
1 Crore 
 
60 Lac 
 
60 Lac 
70 Lac 
 
40 Lac 
 
40 Lac 
Nil  
 
30 Lac 
 
30 Lac 
Nil 
 
Nil 
 
Nil 
3. 
Dhabe
ji 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
- 
 
10 Lac 
 
20 Lac 
- 
 
6 Lac 
 
15 Lac 
5 Lac 
 
4 Lac 
 
10 Lac 
- 
 
Nil 
 
6 Lac 
4. 
Bakra
m 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
1 Crore 
 
55 Lac 
 
60 Lac 
70 Lac 
 
45 Lac 
 
50 Lac 
Nil 
 
25 Lac 
 
30 Lac 
Nil 
 
Nil 
 
Nil 
5. 
Joreji 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
1 Crore 
 
80 Lac 
 
80 Lac 
70 Lac 
 
50 Lac 
 
60 Lac 
50 Lac 
 
30 Lac 
 
40 Lac 
Nil 
 
Nil 
 
Nil 
6. 
Landhi 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
1 Crore 
 
80 Lac 
 
90 Lac 
70 Lac 
 
40 Lac 
 
70 Lac 
40 Lac 
 
25 Lac 
 
40 Lac 
Nil 
 
Nil 
 
Nil 
7. 
Ghagh
ar 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
Nil  
 
Nil  
 
20 Lac 
15 Lac 
 
15 Lac 
 
15 Lac 
10 Lac 
 
10 Lac 
 
10 Lac 
Nil 
 
5 Lac 
 
6 Lac 
8. 
Koterir
o 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
50 Lac 
 
40 Lac 
 
40 Lac 
40 Lac 
 
30 Lac 
 
30 Lac 
Nil 
 
20 Lac 
 
20 Lac 
Nil 
 
Nil 
 
Nil 
9. 
Ibrahi
m 
Hyderi 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
1 Crore 
 
70 Lac 
 
70 Lac 
Nil 
 
50 Lac 
 
50 Lac 
Nil 
 
25 Lac 
 
25 Lac 
Nil 
 
15 Lac 
 
15 Lac 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
43
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
10. 
Rehri 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
1 Crore 
 
70 Lac 
 
70 Lac 
70 Lac 
 
50 Lac 
 
50 Lac 
50 Lac 
 
25 Lac 
 
25 Lac 
Nil 
 
15 Lac 
 
15 Lac 
11. 
Gangi
aro 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
80 Lac 
 
70 Lac 
 
70 Lac 
60 Lac 
 
50 Lac 
 
50 Lac 
Nil  
 
40 Lac 
 
40 Lac 
Nil 
 
30 Lac 
 
30 Lac 
12. 
Dhand
ho 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
 
Nil  
 
Nil 
 
15 Lac 
10 Lac 
 
10 Lac 
 
10 Lac 
Nil 
 
8 Lac 
 
6 Lac 
Nil 
 
Nil 
 
Nil 
13. 
Khakh
ar 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
- 
 
15 Lac 
 
15 Lac 
- 
 
8 Lac 
 
8 Lac 
- 
 
5 Lac 
 
5 Lac 
- 
 
4 Lac 
 
4 Lac 
14. 
Sanehr
o 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
- 
 
20 Lac 
 
20 Lac 
- 
 
15 Lac 
 
15 Lac 
- 
 
8 Lac 
 
10 Lac 
- 
 
Nil 
 
Nil 
 
 
 
“KEAMARI TOWN” 
Sr. 
No
. 
Name 
of Deh 
Description 
 
Categ
ory 
A-I 
Categ
ory 
A 
Categ
ory 
B 
Categ
ory 
C 
1. 
Allah 
Bano 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
- 
 
Nil 
 
10 Lac 
12 Lac 
 
8 Lac 
 
8 Lac 
8 Lac 
 
6 Lac 
 
6 Lac 
6 Lac 
 
4 Lac 
 
4 Lac 
2. 
Lal 
Bakhar 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
40 Lac 
 
30 Lac 
 
30 Lac 
30 Lac 
 
25 Lac 
 
25 Lac 
10 Lac 
 
15 Lac 
 
15 Lac 
7 Lac 
 
5 Lac 
 
10 Lac 
3. 
Maindi
Rates Notified by Govt. in Nil  
12 Lac 
8 Lac 
6 Lac 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
44
ary 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
 
Nil 
 
10 Lac 
 
8 Lac 
 
8 Lac 
 
6 Lac 
 
6 Lac 
 
4 Lac 
 
4 Lac 
4. 
Moach 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
40 Lac 
 
40 Lac 
 
40 Lac 
30 Lac 
 
30 Lac 
 
30 Lac 
20 Lac 
 
20 Lac 
 
20 Lac 
Nil  
 
Nil 
 
Nil 
5. 
Gabo 
Pat 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
Nil 
 
Nil 
 
20 Lac 
15 Lac 
 
12 Lac 
 
15 Lac 
10 Lac 
 
8 Lac 
 
10 Lac 
- 
 
Nil 
 
Nil 
6. 
Moach
ko 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
40 Lac 
 
40 Lac 
 
40 Lac 
30 Lac 
 
30 Lac 
 
30 Lac 
20 Lac 
 
20 Lac 
 
20 Lac 
Nil  
 
Nil 
 
Nil 
7. 
Gundp
ass 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
40 Lac 
 
30 Lac 
 
35 Lac 
30 Lac 
 
20 Lac 
 
25 Lac 
20 Lac 
 
15 Lac 
 
15 Lac 
Nil  
 
Nil 
 
Nil 
8. 
Chath
ara 
Rates Notified by Govt. in 
2006 
 
Rates proposed by ABAD in 
2011 
 
Rates 
recommended 
by 
Scrutiny Committee in 2011. 
- 
 
10 Lac 
 
10 Lac 
- 
 
5 Lac 
 
8 Lac 
- 
 
3 Lac 
 
6 Lac 
- 
 
2 Lac 
 
4 Lac 
 
3. 
It is proposed that the market price of the land as recommended by the 
Scrutiny Committee in respect of above Dehs may be approved, so that the same 
may be notified as per Condition No. 8(3) of the Statement of Conditions and 
Categorization of state land 
4. 
It is further proposed that permission may also be accorded to apply 
revised rates for the cases processed and cleared by Scrutiny Committee from 1st 
April, 2011.  
5. 
The Honourable Chief Minister Sindh, may like to pass orders on Para 2, 3 
and 4.  
Sd/- 
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SINDH 
LAND UTILIZATION DEPARTMENT. 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
45
6. 
Sd/- 
 
SENIOR MEMBER. 
7. 
Sd/- 
 
SECRETARY FINANCE. 
8. 
Sd/- 
 
MINISTER FINANCE. 
9. 
Sd/- 
 
CHIEF SECRETARY. 
10. 
Sd/- 
 
CHIEF MINISTER SINDH.” 
 
The table reproduced above shows that the prices in 2006 were 
much higher than those fixed in 2011. They, in certain cases, are not 
even half of what they were in 2006. This phenomenon is amazing 
and even intriguing because every passing day brings a manifold 
increase in the prices of the land, but here in this case the clock 
rolled back and prices witnessed a marked decline in 2011. The 
learned ASC for the Board of Revenue explained the aforesaid 
phenomenon by stating that no Town Builder in view of the prices 
fixed in 2006 came forward to invest in this enterprise but this 
statement is against the inexorable current trend of the market which 
admits of no exception. The in no case stay static or step down. They, 
as a matter of fact, get multiplied in days let alone weeks, months 
and years. What procedure has been prescribed for determination 
of market price has been highlighted in paragraph 8 of the 
notification No. 09-294-03-SO-I/336 dated 25.2.2006 reproduced as 
under: 
“8. Procedure of determination of market price. –(1) There shall 
be appointed –  
 
(a) a price committee consisting of the Executive District 
Officer (Revenue) to be the convener, Executive District Officer 
Finance, District Officer (Revenue), District Registrar, Deputy 
District Officer (Revenue) and two nominees of the local 
Chamber of Commerce and Industries, one of them shall be 
from the real estate business shall propose the market price; 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
46
(b) a scrutiny committee consisting of the Senior Member 
Board of Revenue as convener, Secretaries of the Land 
Utilization, Finance and concerned Department of the 
Government, Chairman Investment Cell Chief Minister’s 
Secretariat and two representatives of Karachi Chamber of 
Commerce and Industry, one of them shall be from the real 
estate business, to process the market price proposed by the 
Price 
Committee 
and 
make 
recommendations to the 
Government in this behalf.  
 
(2) The Price Committee shall propose the market price in the 
District after taking into consideration:-  
 
(i) the price of land transferred in the same area for similar use 
during the past twelve months; 
 
(ii) the valuation table notified by the Board of Revenue, Sindh 
under the Stamp Act, 1899 for the purpose of levy of stamp 
duty at the time of registration of a sale-deed in respect of sale 
of similar land; and  
 
(iii) such other modes as deemed fit provide a fair basis for 
assessment of such price.  
 
(3) The Price Committee shall submit its recommendation to the 
Scrutiny Committee which shall after such further enquiry as 
deemed fit submit its recommendation to Government for 
determination of the market price.  
 
(4) The market price determination under section 8(3) may be 
reviewed at least after every three years.”  
 
Reduction in prices, thus, cannot be said to have been based on any 
reliable, rational or realistic data. It rather appears to have been 
contrived and conjured to the advantage of the builders and 
disadvantage of the government. Even the committee constituted in 
this behalf has not cited any tenable reason to justify reduction in 
prices. What mode was adopted for determining market price under 
paragraph 8(2)(i)(ii)&(iii), reproduced above, is a question which 
went unanswered. Why the land was not granted through an open 
auction in view of para 4(a) of statement of condition issued in 2006 
notwithstanding the Board and the MDA knew all along that it would 
be used for commercial purposes at the end of the day is a riddle 
which went unsolved. We, therefore, do not agree with the aforesaid 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
47
reduction nor do we tend to accept it as rationalization of price in 
any sense of the word.        
16. 
 
This Court anticipated all this when it passed the order 
on 28.11.2012 restraining the Sindh Government from dealing with the 
State land. The relevant part of the order is reproduced as under: 
"7. Under these circumstances, we are constrained to 
direct that the Deputy Commissioner/District Coordination 
Officers of Sindh, to ensure that immediately the entire 
revenue record of all the district is kept in the custody of 
Muthtiarkar in terms of the directives contained in the 
aforesaid judgment of the High Court and shall not be 
removed from the office of the Mukhtiarkar to any other 
place. Moreover mindful of rampant corruption and 
organized crime of land grabbing, particularly, regarding 
prime state land, and mismanagement/forgeries in the 
revenue record, we hereby, until further orders restrain the 
Government/Revenue 
Department 
from 
mutation, 
allotment, transfer and or conversion of any state land 
and or keeping any transaction or entry in the record of 
rights in this regard in revenue record of Sindh or till the 
entire revenue record in Sindh is reconstructed. The 
conversion of lease for 30 years or of any term up to 99 
years shall also be stopped immediately as by this mode 
the state land is being sold out at a throwaway price 
without participation of public at large, which the law 
does not permit. Any further conversion or mutation of 
state land in the record of rights from today onwards 
would be deemed nullity and would expose the Deputy 
Commissioner/DCO of the relevant districts/dehs besides 
others to contempt proceedings. 
 
A statement was made by the learned Sr. ASC representing the 
Senior Member Board of Revenue and Ch. Aitzaz Ahsan, learned Sr. 
ASC representing the Bahria Town that the aforesaid restraining order 
was modified by a three-member bench of this Court but it sounds 
strange because a three-member bench could not modify an order 
passed by a five-member bench. Even otherwise, this contention 
was repelled by this Court in its order dated 01.08.2016 by observing 
as under:   
“8.   Today, the learned Counsel representing the Senior 
Member, Board of Revenue, and Ch. Aitzaz Ahsan, learned 
Sr.ASC, have 
submitted that the aforesaid restraining order 
was modified, by order dated 23.06.2014, passed by a three- 
member Bench, relevant portion of the said order is also 
reproduced hereunder:- 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
48
 
Learned Advocate General, Sindh, submits that the 
order of this Court regarding stay of allotments, 
mutations, transfer and conversion of any state land 
is being complied with in letter and spirit. 
 
6. We may at this stage clarify that this order staying 
the allotment/grant of leases was meant to ensure 
that the land is not either leased out or allotted for 
reasons other than bona fide and to land grabbers 
and this would not prevent the competent authority 
in the Federal or Government of Sindh to allot or 
lease out land for a project approved by the 
concerned authority which is directed towards 
establishment of any industry or automotive plant or 
power generating plant or any other initiative in 
public interest and in accordance with law and the 
relevant rules. 
 
The learned Advocate General, Sindh, shall convey 
this order to the Chief Secretary and all the 
provincial secretaries to ensure that the earlier order 
is not misconstrued and no such project is held up 
on that account. 
 
9.  
We may clarify that the aforesaid order dated 
23.06.2014 was obtained by misleading the Court on the 
pretext that re-writing/reconstruction of the record has been 
completed by the Sindh Government. Today, the Senior 
Member, Board of Revenue, concedes that the reconstruction 
and rewriting of the record has not been completed till date. 
We hold that the order dated 28.11.2012, passed by a five 
Member Bench of this Court, was never modified and holds the 
field 
10.  
This Application is allowed, subject to all just 
exceptions. 
11.  
Copy of this order be faxed to the Chief Secretary, 
Government of Sindh, D.G, MDA, the Prosecutor General, NAB, 
Ch. Aitzaz Ahsan, learned Sr. ASC and Mr. K.A Wahab, AOR 
(C.M.No.502-K of 2016).To come up after two months.” 
 
When the order restraining the Sindh Government from dealing with 
the state land in any manner till the reconstruction of the entire 
revenue record was passed no property could be exchanged, 
adjusted or alienated but the Board, the MDA and Bahria Town 
having shown scant regard to the orders of the Court exchanged the 
land, took possession of a great deal of property and raised 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
49
construction thereon. Anything thus done cannot be allowed to 
endure even for a while. It even on this score cannot be granted any 
legitimacy. 
17. 
 
A detailed analysis of the case irresistibly drives us to the 
conclusion that nothing has been done in accordance with the 
policy, plan and pattern projected by the relevant enactments. 
Everything appears to have been justified on the ground that it is a 
fait accompli. Damage done to the people and loss caused to the 
coffers of the state is sought to be offset by offering to pay the 
differential between the price of the government land and that of 
the private land it was exchanged for, but the things having gone 
irrevocably too far leave no scope for acceptance of such an offer. 
It is rather a case of its own specie where the Board bypassed the 
command of law and chose to dance at the drumbeats of a 
business tycoon without caring what the law provided and what the 
Supreme Court asked of it. The Malir Development Authority too 
chose to follow the dictates of the business tycoon without caring 
what the dictates of the MDA Act were. How the project can be said 
to have been carried under the umbrella of Malir Development 
Authority when the entire government land has been sold to the 
Bahria Town for a paltry sum or exchanged for a land lying scattered 
in far-off areas? What was the magic, the marvel and the miracle 
that dazed and dazzled the Board and the Authority to bypass the 
law and the rules? What was the impetus, the incentive and the 
inciting force that lent a lightning speed to the Board and the 
Authority to cover the distances of years in days, hours and minutes? 
Such rapidity may have been seen in movies but not in the real life. 
How the builders like the Bahria Town could cater for incremental 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
50
housing schemes when the project it launched attracted the people 
rolling in billions? We do not understand how the Chief Minister, the 
Chief Secretary and persons at the perch of the Board of Revenue 
became privy to an individual project where public purpose, public 
betterment and public welfare cannot be seen even through a 
microscopic eye. The argument of the learned Sr. ASC for the 
respondent addressed on the strength of the judgements rendered 
in the cases of Government of Punjab. Vs. M/s Crescent Textile Mills 
(supra) and Dr. Akhtar Hassan Khan and others. Vs. Federation of 
Pakistan and others (supra) would 
thus 
sound 
inane 
and 
unconscionable. We needed to be assisted and enlightened by the 
Learned Senior ASCs for the Board, the MDA and the learned 
Advocate General Sindh with an element of independence but all 
the three have rather projected the case of the Bahria Town than 
that of the Board and the Authority. Provisions of Colonization of 
Government Lands Act and Malir Development Authority Act have 
been designedly interpreted as if they were enacted for the project 
launched by the Bahria Town. The mode and manner of doing the 
things prima facie show that the entire hierarchy of the Executive, 
the Board of Revenue and the Malir Development Authority 
conspired to cede valuable public property to an individual for a 
handful gain. We have been witnessing such nefarious activities in 
the past at a small level, but we have not even dreamt of such 
activities at such a huge, massive and colossal level. We, thus, 
cannot sit with our eyes shut, hands folded and legs crossed. Inaction 
would be disastrous and devastating for the state when the 
watchdogs of the public property allow the grabbers to grab it for a 
bone or a piece of flesh.  
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
51
18. 
 
Having thus considered, we are constrained to declare 
that the grant of the land to the MDA, its exchange with the land of 
the Bahria Town and anything done pursuant thereto being against 
the provisions of COGLA 1912 and statement of conditions are void 
ab initio and as such have no existence. The government land would 
go back to the government and the land of the Bahria Town 
exchanged for the government land would go back to the Bahria 
Town. Since a great deal of work has been done by the Bahria Town 
and a third-party interest has been created in favour of hundreds of 
allotees, the land could be granted to the Bahria Town afresh by the 
Board of Revenue under the provisions of COGLA 1912. What would 
be the terms and conditions of grant, what would be the price of the 
land, whether it would be the one at which the Bahria Town sold the 
land to the people by and large, how much of government land and 
how much of the private land has been utilized by the Bahria Town, 
and what Bahria Town is entitled to receive in terms of money on 
account of development of the land are the questions to be 
determined by the implementation bench of this Court. We, 
therefore, request the Honorable Chief Justice of Pakistan to 
constitute a bench for the implementation of this judgement in its 
letter and spirit. Bahria Town shall not sell any plot, built-up unit, 
apartment etc after the announcement of this judgement. Any 
allotment made after the announcement of this judgement shall be 
void. As a huge amount on account of allotment of plots, built-up 
units and commercial buildings is still outstanding against the 
allottees, some makeshift arrangement has to be made to facilitate 
the recovery and secure it. We, therefore, direct the Additional 
Registrar of the Karachi Registry to open a special account where 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
52
the outstanding amount against the allotments be deposited. All the 
outstanding amount against allotment of plots, built-up units and 
commercial buildings shall henceforth be deposited by the allottees 
with the Additional Registrar of the Karachi Registry of this Court 
through pay orders, demand drafts or cross-cheques. The NAB shall 
pick up the thread from where it left and take its investigation to its 
logical end. The investigation report which was submitted in the 
Court and sealed under its order may now be collected for further 
action. The investigation be completed within a period of three 
months from the date of announcement of this judgement and a 
reference be filed in the Accountability Court against all those who 
are found responsible for causing loss to the state exchequer. We 
have been told that government land has also been allotted to DHA 
and many other societies on cheaper rates as compared to the rates 
in this case. If so, we would request the Honourable Chief Justice of 
Pakistan to take Suo Moto action in this behalf so that like be treated 
alike.  
19.  
 
While parting with the judgement, we would thank 
Barrister Sohaib Shahid, the Law Clerk who rendered valuable 
assistance in this case.      
JUDGE 
I had the privilege of going through the judgement authored by 
my learned brother Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, but have not able 
to persuade myself to agree with the same and would 
therefore respectfully add my dissenting note annexed 
herewith. 
JUDGE 
 
 
JUDGE  
 
Announced in open court at Islamabad on ______________________ 
 
 
JUDGE 
Approved for reporting 
Barrister Sohaib Shahid 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
53
 
 
 
 
 
MAQBOOL BAQAR, J.- The question that is to be 
addressed in the present proceedings is as to whether the 
lands granted to Malir Development Authority (“MDA”) by the 
Board of Revenue (“BOR”), Government of Sindh (“GoS”), were 
exchanged by MDA with privately owned lands, lawfully or 
otherwise. 
2. 
 
In order to address the above issue properly, we 
firstly need to examine the powers, authority and functions of 
MDA and its relationship with the subject lands. MDA was 
created by Malir Development Authority Act, 1993 (“the Act”), 
for the purpose of development of certain areas of Karachi 
Division as enumerated in its schedule. Amongst its various 
functions, as specified through section 8 of the Act, are “to 
consolidate any land in such manner as may be prescribed by 
rules”. [Section 8(1)(iii-a)]. To “dispose of any land or other 
property vested in it by sale, lease, exchange or otherwise”. 
[Section 8(2)(iii)]. To “perform such other function as may be 
considered necessary for achieving the objective of the authority 
or as assigned to it by the government”. (Section 8(1)(xxi). 
Chapter-III of the Act deals with the power of MDA regarding 
declaration 
of 
controlled 
area, 
preparation 
of 
master 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
54
programmes, and schemes, and their execution. In terms of 
section 14 of the Act, MDA may by notification, declare any 
area under its jurisdiction to be a controlled area, and to 
proceed 
to 
prevent 
haphazard 
growth, 
encroachments, 
unauthorized constructions or operations in such area, and 
take steps for the planned growth therein. As per section 15 of 
the Act, neither can any building be erected, nor can any 
material external alteration in, or addition to, be affected in 
any building without the permission of the authority. MDA, in 
terms of section 16 of the Act, is obliged to prepare Master 
programme(s) for the development, improvement, expansion 
and beatification of such area, or such sectors of economy, as 
in its opinion, or in the opinion of Government need to be 
developed, improved, expanded and beautified, and submit 
such programme for approval of Government. MDA, as laid 
down by section 17(1) of the Act, may also prepare specific 
scheme or schemes for a controlled area, or a part thereof, 
either on its own accord or when so directed by the 
government. In terms of sub-section 2 of section 17 of the Act, 
MDA also may, on the request of any local council, government 
agency, society, person or body of persons, assist in 
preparation of, or caused to be prepared, any scheme on such 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
55
terms and conditions as may be settled between them. The 
scheme prepared by MDA, in terms of clause (d) of sub-section 
4 of section 17 of the Act, may, among other things, contain 
“public or private property or such interest affected by the 
scheme and the proposal to deal with such property or interest”. 
As provided by section 31 of the Act, MDA “may by purchase, 
lease or exchange, acquire any moveable or immovable property 
or any interest therein by entering into agreement with the party 
concerned”. 
3. 
 
As regard the legality and propriety of the subject 
transaction, the learned counsel appearing for the various 
parties argued the case almost on similar lines. They thus 
submitted that MDA in order to carry out its statutory 
functions, to prepare and execute scheme(s) within its 
jurisdiction of authority, required a vast stretch of land, clear 
of all physical and legal obstructions, and encumbrances. In 
this regard it was imperative for MDA to declare such area to 
be its controlled area, so that it may prevent haphazard 
growth, encroachments or unauthorized construction therein 
(section 14). MDA thus in its meeting held on 12.1.2008, 
unanimously resolved to declare two areas falling within its 
jurisdiction, one compromising of two dehs, namely, Ghaghar, 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
56
Dhabeji, and the other comprising of seven Dehs, namely, 
Allah Phihai, Shah Mureed, Narathar, Konkar, Tore Mohyo and 
Shahi chib, as controlled areas for its development schemes, by 
the name of, new Malir Housing Project, MDA Scheme-I, 
Phase-II, and Taiser Town Phase-II. The above nine dehs were 
thus, through a notification dated 25.2.2008, declared as 
controlled area. MDA in its meeting held on 4.2.2013, resolved 
to expand its controlled area by including thirty seven (37) 
more Dehs within such area, to enable it to “prepare a master 
programme for development of planning infrastructure and land 
use plan”. Through notification dated 20.5.2013, the aforesaid 
thirty seven (37) dehs also were thus declared as controlled 
area. On 23.7.2013, MDA floated a summary for the Chief 
Minister Sindh seeking his permission for “survey and 
preparation of road network/land use plan” of the notified Dehs 
and for the “adjustment of affected private survey lands” to 
enable MDA to develop the area and launch its new housing 
scheme(s). The summary was routed through proper channel, 
and was, after scrutiny, allowed by the Chief Minister on 
05.11.2013. A notification in pursuance of the above, granting 
permission to MDA for physical survey and preparation of 
“road network/land use plan” of the controlled area “and 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
57
adjustment of affected private/acquired state land required for 
development purpose” was issued on 26.12.2013. A detailed 
master programme, titled, “Master Programme Scheme-1 
(Phase-I- comprising of 32 dehs out of 43 dehs), (MPS-I), and 
preparation of PC-I of schemes, or schemes for execution of the 
master programme”, was unanimously approved by MDA in its 
meeting held on dated 24.1.2014. The authority in its said 
meeting also approved “the proposal for consolidation/ 
adjustment/exchange of the affected private/acquired state 
land” in the controlled area. The approval was duly notified by 
MDA through notification dated 28.1.2014.  
4. 
 
The learned counsel further submitted that, since 
throughout the controlled area there were stumbling blocks in 
the way of the execution of the MPS-I, by way of private land 
holdings, which holdings were essentially required by MDA for 
implementation/execution of the scheme, and for acquiring 
such lands MDA was required, either to pay to the private 
owners, the price of the lands, or to give to the owners some 
lands in exchange thereof, but MDA was under severe financial 
crunch, and had no funds to pay for the purchase of the land, 
nor was the Government in a position to finance the 
purchases. In fact as noted by the consultant in their MPS-I 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
58
Report, the scheme so prepared was a self-financing scheme 
and was not included in the than five years plan, or the 
provincial annual development plan. However, as noted earlier, 
MDA, in terms of the various provisions of the Act, also have 
had the option of acquiring such land(s) by way of exchange, 
but though the land comprising the aforesaid 43 Dehs fell 
within its jurisdiction, and was also declared its controlled 
area in terms of section 14 of the Act, still, for MDA to give any 
land in exchange, such land was required to be transferred in 
its name. MDA therefore, through letter dated 01.1.2014, 
requested the Board of Revenue Sindh (BOR) to reserve some 
land(s), to enable MDA to exchange the same with the private 
land holding coming  in the way of implementation of its 
development scheme(s). The matter was ultimately placed 
before the Chief Minister Sindh and was then referred to a 
scrutiny committee. The scrutiny committee, which was 
headed by the Chief Secretary Sindh, with the Secretaries, law, 
Land Utilization, Finance, Local Government, Government of 
Sindh (GoS), Senior Member BOR, Commissioner Karachi, and 
Deputy Commissioner, Malir, amongst others, as its members, 
in its meeting held on 23.1.2014, recommended reservation of 
14617 acres of land in favour of MDA at the market price to be 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
59
determined in accordance with law. The Chief Minister Sindh 
allowed the recommended reservation in favour of MDA, such 
is evident from the endorsement on the relevant summary, and 
also from the letter dated 24.1.2014, addressed by Secretary, 
Land 
Utilization 
Department 
(“LUD”), 
GoS, 
to 
Deputy 
Commissioner Malir, Karachi. 
5. 
 
The LUD, accordingly reserved 14617 acres of land 
in favour of MDA. Through letter dated 28.1.2014, DC, Malir 
asked MDA to approach the LUD “for payment of the market 
price”, market price, it may be noted had already been notified 
for various categories of land in the controlled area through 
notification dated 29.6.2011. However, at the request of MDA 
for reduction in the price, the Chief Minister Sindh, in view of 
the fact that the land was granted for public purpose, and also 
keeping in view the financial health of MDA, allowed MDA to 
pay the price of the land at 25% of the market price. By 
07.3.2015, MDA deposited a total of Rs.1.668 Billion, being the 
price of 11068 acres of the reserved land, and thus secured 
such land with entries in the revenue record in its favour as a 
“transferee/new owner” thereof. Having become the owner of 
the land, MDA through public notices in various daily 
newspapers, including the daily “Jang”, invited all those who 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
60
held lands in the controlled area, to exchange their lands with 
MDA for the purpose of consolidation.  In response five 
individuals, 
namely, 
Waqas 
Riffat, 
Shahid 
Mehmood, 
Mohammad Awais and Wasim Riffat, (the private owners), who 
owned an aggregate 9407 acres of land in the controlled area, 
came forward for exchange and consolidation offered by MDA. 
In order to verify the veracity and genuineness of the said 
respondents’ title to the land, MDA referred their documents to 
DC, Malir/Revenue Department, and also invited public 
objection as required by regulation 5(2) of the Malir 
Development Authority (Consolidation/Adjustment/Exchange 
of private survey lands and state regulation 2, 3), thus MDA 
upon satisfactory verification, and there being no objection, 
proceeded to undertake the exchange(s). However since not all 
the lands exchanged with each other were equal in 
value/market price, the private owners paid to the MDA the 
differential amount, such was done on the basis of the market 
price of the subject lands prescribed in terms of section 10-
B(1) of the COGLA through a notification dated 29.6.2011. As 
per the learned counsel the total market value of the land 
given by MDA in exchange for the land it acquired from the 
private owners was Rs.6.12 billion, whereas the total value of 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
61
the lands received from the private owners in exchange, was 
Rupees 5.589 billion, and thus the difference in value between 
the two comes to Rs. 2.60 billion, out of which MDA had 
already received Rs.2.40 billion, whereas .20 billion are to be 
paid.  
6. 
 
The learned counsel contended that from the 
foregoing narrations of facts and in view of the relevant 
provisions of law as discussed earlier, it can clearly be seen 
that there has not been any illegality in the subject exchanges 
and the transactions were/are absolutely lawful. They 
submitted that in addition to receiving the enormous amount 
by way of differential in the market price of the land 
exchanged, MDA has also earned an amount of Rs. 8889.064 
million on account of consolidation/adjustment/exchange 
charges, scrutiny fee, publication/advertisement charges, town 
planning fee, and outer development charges, etc. Out of which 
it has received an amount of Rs. 3754.136 million, and the 
balance of amount of Rs. 4134.928 million is outstanding to be 
paid. 
7. 
 
M/s Aitzaz Ahsan and Ali Zafar, learned counsel for 
the private owners, with whom MDA has exchanged the land, 
and the Bahria Town (Pvt.) Ltd (“Bahria Town”), respectively, 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
62
submitted that MDA and the GoS have not only benefited from 
the subject exchanges in terms of cash receipts, as noted 
above, but on account of the high quality conceptualization, 
planning, designing, and development of the Bahria Town, 
which undoubtedly can be ranked as one of the best town 
developments, at least  in Asia, has, apart from providing 
employment to thousands of skilled and unskilled labourers, 
Engineers, designers, planners and several other  categories of 
professionals, has also provided business to a large number of 
contractors, manufacturers, suppliers, vendors, transporters 
and service providers. The project according to the learned 
counsel has given a heavy boost to the building/construction 
related industry, and has also generated massive business and 
commercial activities in the town itself. The learned counsel 
submitted that the project development work and its ancillary 
activities are also a major source of revenue for the Local, 
Provincial and Federal Governments, and above all the 
successful and impressive development in the Bahria town has 
also attracted and incentivized others to come forward and 
invest in the area, and develop it at a compatible level, which 
has resulted in exponential appreciation in the value of land at 
least within fifteen (15) kilometers of the scheme all around, 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
63
which runs into hundreds of billions of rupees. According to 
the learned counsel the value of the land in the area, since 
after the commencement of the Bahria Town has appreciated 
at least eight to ten times. According to the learned counsel, 
Bahria has set a bench mark for the others, in terms of 
planning, designing, execution and implementation of town 
planning and development, and in respect of various amenities 
and sustainable facilities, that a full-fledged and self-contained 
modern town should offer for pleasant, safe, healthy and 
convenient modern living. Highlighting, some important 
features of the Bahria town, the learned counsel submitted 
that the infrastructure built in the town is of such a nature 
and strength that it shall last for about 200 years. The town 
has a theme park which is second of its kind in Asia, the 
earlier being in Singapore. No developer has built or developed 
a night safari park like the one in Bahria town. State of the art 
hospital of European standard, with transplant facilities, is 
now fully functional in Bahria town. Apart from, a top 
standard school fully functioning, a university by the name of 
Abdul Sattar Edhi shall soon be inaugurated. The town has its 
own cinemas open to public. A dancing foundation has been 
built in the town at a cost of 39 Million euros. The town 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
64
contains a 37 hole golf course constructed by a British 
company at a cost of US Dollar forty million. A cricket stadium 
with a capacity of forty eight thousands spectators shall soon 
be completed. A world class five star hotel is under 
construction. Garbage collection and management is fully 
functional. Water treatment plants have been installed and are 
operational. Internal clear water plants also are operational. 
According to learned counsel Bahria town has invested Rs. five 
billion to develop and construct an access /approach from 
express way to the Bahria town and has already paid an 
amount of Rs. one billion to the Frontier Work Organization for 
necessary permission. They submitted that more than 150,000 
people, who earlier had no job, are now engaged in property 
related jobs on account of Bahria town and further that 3,000 
families have already settled in the town and are living therein, 
the learned counsel further submitted that more than 90,000 
people have invested with Bahria. As per the learned counsel 
percent 1,2,4,5,6,7-20,24,25 and 35 of the town have already 
been delivered to the owners. 
8. 
 
The learned counsel contended that there was no 
legal impediment in the way of exchange of the land and 
referred to the various provisions of the law discussed in the 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
65
earlier part of the judgment. They further submitted that for 
the purposes of implementation and execution of their 
schemes, namely, (1) Shah Latif Town, Scheme 25-A, (2) New 
Malir Housing Project and (3) Taiser Town, Scheme 45, also, 
MDA has undertaken exchange/adjustment/consolidation as 
in the present case and that even Karachi Development 
Authority (“KDA”), the predecessor of MDA has in respect of its 
various housing schemes such as, (i) Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Scheme 
24, (ii) Surjani Township, Scheme-43 and (iii) Hawksbay, 
Scheme-42 exchanged state land with privately owned land. 
They claimed it is not only for its schemes that MDA has 
exchanged lands but it has also exchanged lands with private 
individuals/ entities for the latter’s projects like, (a) Roti 
Corporation, 
(b) 
Sindh 
Employees 
CHS, 
(c) 
Omema 
Construction Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., (d) Wedfry (Pvt.) Ltd., (e) Institute 
of Engineers Housing Society, (f) Garden City, (g) Muslim City, 
(h) Model City. Learned counsel further submitted that in fact 
huge parcels of land have been allotted to entities like, Defense 
Housing Authority (DHA), Fazaia, in close proximity, with the 
Bahria town by the LUD, at rates far cheaper than the market 
price as determined under the law. As per the learned counsel 
LUD has allotted 19,640 acres of land to DHA at a rate as low 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
66
as Rs.1000/- per acre. Such land they emphasized lies within 
the controlled area of MDA. 
9. 
 
Indeed in terms of subsection (2A) of section 10 of 
the Colonization and Disposal of Government Land Act, 1912 
(“the COGLA”), land granted under section 10 by the LUD, is 
not exchangeable with private or Kabuli land, however such 
restriction, as evident from the provisions of section 17 of the 
COGLA, is applicable only where the land is held by the 
grantee as a tenant, whereas the status of a tenant, in terms of 
section 15 of the COGLA, persists with the grantee only till the 
time the entire amount of purchase money is paid by him and 
other conditions set forth in the statement of conditions are 
fulfilled. The grantee’s status of a tenant is thus converted into 
that of an owner upon his paying the purchase money, and 
fulfilling the relevant conditions, thereby removing the 
impediment/ restriction imposed by section 10(2A) of COGLA. 
In any view of the matter, MDA being a statutory body, is 
governed by its Act, which act and the Rules and Regulations 
framed thereunder, as ordained by section 47 of the Act, 
overrides all other laws, rules and regulations, and thus, as 
rightly emphasized by M/s. Farooq H. Naek and Rasheed A. 
Rizvi, Advocates, the above said restriction does not apply to 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
67
MDA, more so in the facts and circumstances of the case. The 
Act, it may be noted, fully empowers, authorizes and enables 
MDA to exchange land for the purpose of consolidation. 
Section 8(1)(iii-a), thus specifically provides that, “subject to the 
general or special directions of Government”, MDA shall 
“consolidate any land in such manner as may be prescribed by 
rules”. 
Whereas 
the 
MDA 
(Consolidation/Adjustment/ 
Exchange of private survey lands and state lands) Regulation 
2013, through its regulation No.3 and 5, prescribes an 
elaborate procedure for such consolidation/ adjustment/ 
exchange, including for calling public objection, and for 
mutation of the consequential transfer, which have been duly 
complied with in the present case.  
10. 
 
The act of “consolidation of land” has been 
described by clause (ff) of section 2 of the Act, as “adjustment 
of plots in a scheme by way of exchange or otherwise for the 
purposes of the scheme”. The above definition/description does 
not give way to any confusion regarding the fact that exchange 
and consolidation takes place before the implementation and 
execution of a scheme, it is rather a step towards such 
implementation. 
However, 
in 
order 
to 
have 
a 
clearer 
perception, it may be noted that the word “plot” used in section 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
68
2(ff) of the Act, has not been defined by the Act, and is 
therefore to be read, understood, and construed in its ordinary 
literary sense. The word has been defined by the Black’s Law 
Dictionary, as  a measured piece of land, a lot, a track of land 
especially one having specific boundaries, or being used for a 
given purpose. The meanings assigned to this word by Merriam 
Webster dictionary are, a small area of planted ground; a 
vegetable plot; a small piece of land in a cemetery, a measured 
piece of land. Whereas Chambers 21st Century Dictionary has 
defined the word “plot” as a piece of ground for any of various 
uses. It can therefore be seen that the literary/dictionary 
meanings of this word also fully reconciles, and are in 
harmony with the purpose and spirit of the concept 
“Consolidation/Adjustment/ Exchange” as envisaged by the 
Act, and goes well with the scheme of law, being the 
consolidation of land for the purpose of a scheme. It hardly 
needs to be mentioned that it is only after the consolidation of 
land, by way of exchange and adjustment, that various 
residential, commercial, amenity and/or industrial plots are 
carved out, created and demarcated through a layout plan/site 
plan, 
according 
to 
the 
scheme, 
and 
not 
before 
the 
consolidation, and therefore, the word “plot” as employed by 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
69
section 2(ff) of the Act, cannot be said to mean, “a residential 
plot, residential cum commercial plot, industrial plot, or a flat 
site in any scheme”, which meaning has been assigned to the 
word by Rule 2 (j) of the MDA Disposal of plot Rules 2006, 
which definition, as is patently clear, even from the 
nomenclature of the said Rules, has been given to the word, in 
the limited context of disposal of plots and is also not 
exhaustive. The definition does not exclude the ordinary/ 
literary meanings of the word, it merely specifies the kinds of 
plots that can possibly be created and allotted in a scheme, 
and cannot be borrowed to be read into the definition of 
consolidation under section 2(ff) of the Act. It may also be 
relevant 
to 
recall 
here 
that 
the 
subject 
exchange/ 
adjustment/consolidation, has in fact been permitted by the 
Government for the purposes of implementation and execution 
of the scheme proposed through the master programme. 
Whereas the Master Programme provides for the subject 
exchange/ adjustment/ consolidation, accordingly, which plan 
also has been approved by the government, a voluminous 
report of which programme (titled, the Master Program 
Scheme-I, Phase-I, in respect of 32 dehs, within the controlled 
area where exchanges have taken place), contains all the 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
70
necessary information and details regarding the essential 
features of the Master programme and matters ancillaries 
thereto. Whereas section 17(4) (d) says that the scheme(s) 
prepared by MDA, shall among other things contain, inter alia, 
public and private property or such interest affected by the 
scheme and the proposal to deal with such properties or 
interest. In other words, while preparing a scheme MDA is 
required to suggest and provide for the ways, means and 
manner in which it propose to deal with any property, which 
may be affected by the scheme, and has in the present case 
accordingly provided for the exchange and consolidation of 
such property/land, which was duly approved by GoS, and has 
accordingly been implemented in consonance with the relevant 
provision of law. 
11. 
 
MDA’s power to exchange land(s) is further 
reinforced and fortified through clause (iii) of sub-section (2) of 
Section 8 of the Act, which says that “the authority may 
dispose of any land or other property vested in it by sale, lease, 
exchange or otherwise”, which provision is fully applicable to 
the present case, as upon making payment of the market price 
and execution of lease deeds of the subject lands in favour of 
MDA by LUD, GoS, for ninety nine (99) years, the title of the 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
71
land vested in MDA, enabling it to exchange the land as 
mandated by the government. 
12. 
 
It may be relevant to note here that the subject 
reservation/transfer/grant of land was not a transfer or a 
grant in favour of a private individual, or a private or 
commercial entity, but was in favour of a statutory body, 
discharging functions of the State under the control of the 
Government. The land was so granted for carrying out the 
mandate of law by development of a housing scheme, and 
thereby uplifting the entire area consisting of thirty two (32), 
dehs, measuring about 406071.16 acres, (mostly barren), 
which certainly is a public purpose. In fact by reserving and 
transferring the subject lands, GoS has in fact put the land to 
a use for carrying a public purpose, through MDA. The grant of 
land under discussion was/is immune from the restriction 
contained in section 10(1) (2-A) for this reason also. 
13. 
 
As to how and why Bahria is undertaking the 
development work within the controlled area, it may be 
observed that firstly, the lands wherein Bahria is developing its 
town has not been granted or allotted to it  by GoS or MDA, 
but the same have been acquired by it by way of exchange 
through the five private owners who originally also owned 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
72
lands within the controlled area and gave away the same for 
the present lands to achieve mutual/reciprocal consolidation, 
secondly, the Act does not necessarily require even a master 
programme, or the Scheme(s) thereunder to be executed by 
MDA itself, on the contrary the various clauses of section 8 (1) 
& (2), more particularly clauses (xii) to (xv) of sub-section (2), 
envisages the development/ execution of the scheme(s), being 
undertaken by parties other than MDA also, in fact the Malir 
Development Authority (Consolidation/ Adjustment/ Exchange 
of private survey lands and state lands) Regulation, 2013, 
through 
its 
regulation 
4(4), 
provides 
for 
issuance 
of 
development permits within the notified development scheme 
and controlled areas. The said regulation also prescribes a 
procedure therefor. Thirdly, the approved master programme 
itself provides for development by private housing societies and 
land(s) have been reserved for such purpose accordingly. 
Fourthly, the development being carried by Bahria is in 
consonance with the purpose and mandate behind the creation 
of MDA. Bahria is thus promoting a public purpose. It is now 
well settled that acquisition of land for developing a township 
or residential or commercial plots is a public purpose. Such an 
undertaking by a non-governmental concern is a norm rather 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
73
than an anomaly, and according to the learned counsel for 
Bahria even in the controlled area, and the area notified for the 
Master Programme, various concerns, developers, builders and 
housing 
societies 
have, 
and 
are 
undertaking 
such 
development, and to some of them like DHA and Fazaia, BOR 
itself has granted lands within the controlled area. As per 
learned counsel such allotment to DHA is made at a rate(s) far 
less than those applied in case of Bahria. 
14. 
 
It is indeed true that the market price(s) notified on 
29.6.2011, on the basis whereof the differential amount in the 
value of the subject exchanges were calculated were mostly 
lower than those fixed in the year 2006. However, the said 
prices of the year 2011 which were applicable at the relevant 
time, were fixed, approved and notified on the recommendation 
of a Scrutiny Committee constituted under condition No.8 
(1)(b) of the relevant statement of conditions. The scrutiny 
committee was headed by the Senior Member BOR, with 
Secretary LUD, two representatives of Karachi Chambers of 
Commerce and Industry (KCCI), Executive District Officers of 
Karachi, Hyderabad and Jamshoro, as its members, and as 
evident from the minutes of its meeting dated 18.5.2011, the 
committee 
made 
such 
recommendations, 
after 
lengthy 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
74
deliberations in a series of meetings, wherein the proposal of 
the district price fixation committee were analyzed, thoroughly 
and the representative of KCCI apprised the committee that 
the rates of the government lands fixed in the year 2006 were 
three to four times higher than the real market price, which 
excessive rates discouraged investment in the industrial 
sector, hampered its growth, and diverted investment towards 
other venues, causing a heavy dent to the economy. According 
to him, due to recession, the market rate of lands had dropped 
to almost 50%. The KCCI representative supported the 
rationalization of rate done by ABAD and the District Price 
Committee, which were found to be in consonance with the 
than prevailing market prices. Similarly, the Chairman ABAD, 
apprised the committee that private owned lands were 
available for sale at rates below the rates notified in the year 
2006, and suggested 35% to 50% reduction in such rates. The 
EDO 
(Revenue), 
Karachi 
also 
informed 
that 
prices 
recommended by the District Price Committee were in 
consonance with the prevalent market rates, which rates 
according to him, were mostly lower than the rates notified in 
the year 2006. He apprised the scrutiny committee that the 
bench marks recommended through condition No.2 of the 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
75
relevant statement of conditions notified on 25.2.2006, being, 
(i) the prices of lands transferred in the relevant locality for 
similar use during the past twelve months and (ii) the 
valuation table notified by the BOR, Sindh, in respect of 
similar lands, under the stamps Act, 1899, were kept in view, 
and all other appropriate means and method were employed by 
the district price fixation committee while assessing and 
recommending the market price. The scrutiny committee, in 
view of the foregoing and after taking into consideration the 
other relevant parameters, and collecting market intelligence, 
recommended four different categories of lands being category 
A-1, A, B, C, and also recommended fixation of per acre price 
of each such category of lands in different dehs, as per the 
than prevalent market price, which recommendations were 
duly approved and were notified on 29.6.2011.  It may be 
noted here that before recommending the categories of lands 
as noted above, the scrutiny committee considered the 
recommendation of a sub-committee constituted under the 
members LUD, for the purpose, in that regard. 
15. 
 
From the forgoing it is now abundantly clear that 
the subject exchanges have been affected in accordance with 
the law and that there has been no illegality in the process. 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
76
The exchanges were made to promote and facilitate the cause, 
purpose and intent behind the creation of MDA, being the 
development, improvement and beautification of the area. The 
development of a town that was made possible by the subject 
exchanges/consolidation of lands, has not only brought huge 
revenue and created opportunity for such generation with a 
much greater proportion in future also but has given to the 
port city of Pakistan, a new town with massive infrastructure, 
utilities and amenities and has also resulted in creation of jobs 
and business opportunities for good number of people. This 
development of the project has also largely contributed to the 
enormous appreciation in the value of the land in the area, 
which land is mainly owned by GoS and has given boost to the 
development activities around it. It is also likely to contribute 
to the economic and social wellbeing of the people who have 
been living in the area of the town and around it since before 
its development, which area until only a few years before was a 
desolate barren place. 
16. 
 
Indeed it is one of the prime obligation of the State, 
the Government and the MDA, to provide for housing for lower 
and middle income group, however, looking at the level of 
capacity, capability, competence, conviction and commitment 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
77
of our public sector organization, and the lack of resources 
they suffer from, it cannot be said with any degree certainty 
that the controlled area would have been better-of without the 
subject exchanges and development that has taken place on 
the lands consolidated in consequence thereof, more so 
keeping in view the fact that MDA which was created in the 
year 1993 has till date not been able to make any substantial 
or significant development and has not been able to initiate 
any housing scheme since after its three schemes mentioned 
earlier, which too cannot be taken as example to emulate.  
17. 
 
As regards the fact that many of the lands in 
exchange whereof the five private owners/Bahria were given 
the present lands were far away from the highway, it may be 
noted that in the first place it was only the owners of the said 
land who came forward for the offered exchange/consolidation 
and 
further 
that 
in 
the 
area 
where 
these 
private 
individual/Bahria have been given land in exchange, they in 
fact also own lands other than those they obtained in exchange 
and thus this area also was not free from private holdings, to 
enable MDA to develop its own scheme there. Furthermore the 
exchange and consolidation has been done for the mutual 
benefit of both the parties, by way of compaction and 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
78
consolidation of their lands. In fact the value and utility of the 
lands which were far away may also have improved 
substantially for the reason that the development and growth 
in the area in the shape of Bahria town and the development 
that has followed it, the said distant lands have become closer 
to the well developed and well grown areas, which has 
prompted further growth and development around it. 
18. 
 
The above does not at all mean that the 
State/Government and the authorities and organizations 
working under it should abdicate their legal and constitutional 
role to develop, construct, and provide for housing and other 
amenities for the lower and middle income group. The GoS and 
MDA should therefore work towards enhancing their capability 
by employing/engaging competent and committed personnel 
with sincerity of purpose. They should provide funds for 
developing townships for lower and middle income group, 
keeping in view their welfare and betterment, and for self-
contained, comfortable, sustainable, environmental friendly 
living with fast, convenient, economical and sustainable access 
and mobility, and with all other necessary facilities and 
amenities like, water, gas, electricity, parks, playgrounds, 
educational institutions and complete health care system. 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
79
19. 
 
It may be noted that Malir District which is under 
the jurisdiction of MDA comprises of 631848 acres of land and 
therefore there is no dearth of space or land for the planning 
and development of such schemes as envisaged above, and if 
done with proper planning, prudence, honesty, sincerity, and 
with professional approach some land can also be used for 
lawful commercial exploitation for generating funds for the 
proposed development.  
20. 
 
However, since as noted above, the subject 
exchanges have been done lawfully and did not suffer from any 
blemish and there is not even a prima facie  evidence of any 
malafide in that regards, nor has it been alleged that any 
officer involved in the exercise, made any personal gain out of 
it, the matter therefore does not call for any interference. Minor 
deviation of rules and regulations, if any, would not justify the 
judicial review of the subject decision made by the competent 
authority. It is now well laid down that where a competent 
authority makes a lawful decision, it would not be just and 
proper to interfere therewith as the decision made in 
accordance with the mandate of law falls within the domain of 
the executive. It is not for the courts to determine as to 
whether a certain policy or a particular decision in pursuance 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
80
of such policy is fair or appropriate. The power of judicial 
review should be exercised by the Courts in furtherance of 
public interest and it is only in cases where it would be in the 
larger public interest. 
21 
 
However, since some of the lands received by MDA 
in exchange from the private owners are distantly located, and 
though it is claimed that the differential amount charged is 
based on the market price lawfully determined, by keeping in 
view all relevant factors, but, since not much material in 
respect of such claim has been placed before us and the 
learned counsel for Bahria has himself offered reevaluation of 
the lands involved and to pay any further amount thus found 
due and payable, we therefore find it appropriate to constitute 
a Committee comprising of the following persons:- 
Mr. 
Nasir 
Mahmood 
Khan 
Khosa, 
Ex-Chief 
Secretary, 
Punjab, Lahore  
Chairman  
 
Mr. Shabbar Zaidi, Managing 
Partner, AF Ferguson & Co.,  
Chartered Accountant, Karachi  
Member  
 
Secretary, LUD, GoS 
Member  
 
Secretary, Finance, GoS 
Member  
 
Mr. 
Arif 
Hassan, 
Architect, 
Visiting 
Professor, 
NED 
University, Karachi, Chairman 
Orangi Pilot Project, Research 
and Training Institute, Karachi 
  
Member 
Mr. Kaiser Bengali, a prominent 
economist, Karachi  
 
Member 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
81
Mr. Jamil Yousef, Chainman 
TPL Corporation Ltd., former 
Chairman CPLC, Karachi 
 
Member 
Mr. 
Karamat 
Ali, 
Executive 
Director, Pakistan Institute of 
Environmental 
and 
Labour 
Research, Karachi 
 
Member 
One (01) member from KCCI, to 
be nominated by the Chairman 
in 
consultation 
with 
the 
president 
KCCI 
who 
should 
preferably be from real estate 
business. 
 
Member 
 
The Committee shall assess and evaluate the market price(s) of 
the lands exchanged between MDA and the five private 
owners/Bahria that prevailed at the time of the exchange(s), by 
first bifurcating the lands into different categories, keeping in 
view the relevant characteristics of the various parcels of the 
lands in terms of their distance from super highway and those 
other approaches that were available at the relevant time. The 
other factors that shall be kept in mind in effecting the above 
categorization shall be the distance of each portion of the land 
from the general post office, Karachi, or from any other land-
mark 
found 
appropriate, 
its 
contiguity, 
contours 
and 
topography, and may be its geology, if and where relevant. The 
exercise shall be carried out with the assistance of the senior 
most officer from the Survey of Pakistan and also with 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
82
assistance of such officer from the Survey Department of 
Government of Sindh, qualified and competent to conduct 
and/or supervise the same. The committee shall on the 
recommendation of Mr.Arif Hassan, Architect, Member of the 
Committee,  also engage independent experts/professionals 
from amongst the best in the field, in terms of qualification, 
experience and integrity, to be part of the survey and 
demarcation Team. Upon the above categorization the 
Committee shall proceed to assess and evaluate the market 
price of each of the said categories for a development project 
with reference to the relevant time. In doing so the Committee 
shall keep in view the location of each category, its contiguity, 
its distance from the super highway, and also from all other 
approaches that existed during the relevant time and also the 
quality, width and motorability thereof. The other determining 
factors should also include the availability, nature and 
distance of potable water, gas and electricity, the estimated 
cost of providing basic amenities to the said categories/zones 
with reference to the relevant time and the price at which 
similar category/nature and sizes of lands were sold in the 
vicinity, or similar vicinities during one year of the relevant 
time. Information regarding the relevant market price shall 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
83
also be gathered from independent Estate dealers of high 
repute and integrity, who have been operating in the area since 
before 2014 and had worked as such at least upto the year 
2015. 
Such 
information 
should 
be 
duly 
verified 
and 
authenticated in the safest possible manner. The Committee 
shall also seek assistance from some highly reputable property 
evaluators/assessor, from amongst the panel nominated by 
the State Bank of Pakistan and the scheduled banks in the 
country. The future potential that the land promised at the 
relevant time shall also be kept in mind. The Committee shall 
also adhere to the other recognized principles and practices in 
vogue for the requisite assessment/evaluation. All material 
containing the relevant information, and/or on the basis 
whereof the Committee and/or any of its member rely, for its 
analysis and evaluation, shall form part of the report. Before 
submitting its report the Committee shall also hear an 
accredited representative of Bahria Town.  Since the 
Committee comprise of Economists, Chartered Accountants, 
Architects, businessmen, Government Officials and other 
persons of eminence from different fields, they also may, on 
their own, or with the assistance of such professionals/experts 
whom 
they 
find 
suitable, 
prescribe 
the 
evaluation  
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
84
criteria/formula, and the ways and means for conducting and 
carrying out the above exercise. The Malir Development 
Authority, 
Karachi 
Development 
Authority 
and 
all 
the 
departments/functionaries of the GoS particularly, the Local 
Government Department, Commissioner Karachi, Board of 
Revenue, 
Land 
Utilization 
Department, 
The 
Municipal 
Commissioner, Karachi, Secretary Finance, Government of 
Sindh, Home Secretary, Government of Sindh, who may be 
called upon by the Committee to facilitate and to provide 
assistance to the Committee in carrying out the above 
mandate, shall readily and promptly meet the requisition. The 
IGP, Sindh as well as DG Rangers shall provide adequate 
security to the Committee Members during the conduct of the 
above task, as and when required by them. Bahria Town shall 
bear all expenses incurred in the above exercise, including the 
remuneration of the professionals/ staff/field staff engaged by 
the Committee for the task, and shall also provide to the 
Committee and its field staff the required transport. The fee of 
the Members of the Committee shall be determined by the 
Court keeping in view the volume of work done and the time 
consumed. Bahria Town shall within four days from today 
deposit with the Nazir of the High Court of Sindh an amount of 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
85
Rs.20,00,000/- (rupees Two hundred thousand only) towards 
the expense that may be incurred by the Committee and shall, 
deposit such further amount as and when may be required by 
the Committee. The amount so deposited shall be released by 
the Nazir as and when requested by the Chairman of the 
Committee to enable the committee to meet its expenses 
towards its task. The committee shall conclude the above 
assigned task within two (02) months from today and submit 
its report to the Court so that appropriate order be made by 
this Court accordingly. The Registrar of this Court shall 
instantly inform the Chairman and Members of the Committee 
about the instant order and send to them copies of the order 
so that a preliminary meeting of the committee be convened by 
the Chairman at the earliest and the committee may proceed 
to comply with the orders at a fast pace. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(Justice Maqbool Baqar) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
86
Faisal Arab, J.- I have had the privilege of going through the 
judgment proposed by my learned brother, Ejaz Afzal Khan, J and 
am in respectful agreement with his opinion. However, I wish to 
discuss certain aspects of the case as I look at them.  
 
2. 
 
The record produced on behalf of Malir Development 
Authority (MDA) reflects that in the meeting held on 30.01.2013, a 
decision was taken to provide 2500 low-cost housing units in all MDA 
schemes in line with the Prime Minister’s Housing Program. On that 
very day thirty-seven Dehs of Karachi were notified as controlled 
area of MDA. The number of notified Dehs was later raised to forty-
three on 20.05.2013. Minutes of MDA’s meeting held on 23.07.2013 
show that Director General, MDA has sent a summary to the then 
Chief Minister seeking approval of MDA’s own housing schemes 
described as Schemes No. 2 to 4. This summary was followed by 
another summary for revival of Malir Development Authority Act, 
1993 which at that time was not in force. On 27.11.2013, Malir 
Development Authority (Revival & Amending) Ordinance, 2013 was 
promulgated reviving Malir Development Authority Act, 1993 with 
retrospective effect. After such revival, the then Chief Minister of 
Sindh on 26.12.2013 approved the proposals made in the summary 
dated 23.07.2013 for launching MDA’s schemes No.2 to 4 and for this 
purpose MDA’s governing body i.e. the Board needed to be 
constituted which was accordingly done on 20.01.2014 and on the 
very next day i.e. 21.01.2014, the newly constituted Board convened 
its meeting and sent a summary to the Government of Sindh to 
reserve nine out of forty-three Dehs for its housing schemes. 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
87
3. 
 
The record of this case also reflects that while all this was 
being done, Bahria had already emerged on the scene on 
25.09.2013 and through extensive publicity invited applications from 
the general public for grant of membership against payment of 
Rs.15,000/- as only members were to become eligible for making 
bookings in its three schemes namely ‘Bahria Icon Tower’ in Clifton, 
‘Bahria Tower’ on Tariq Road and ‘Bahria Town, Karachi. The location 
of the last mentioned scheme, which is the subject matter of these 
proceedings, was however not disclosed at that point in time. On 
26.01.2014, through another cycle of advertisements, Bahria for the 
first time disclosed to the public the approximate location of its 
scheme ‘Bahria Town Karachi’ as 9 KM from Karachi Toll Plaza on the 
Super Highway and a 25-minute drive from Jinnah International 
Airport. The advertisement offered for sale (i) residential plots 
measuring 2000, 1000, 500, 250 and 125 square yards, (ii) commercial 
plots measuring 250, 200 and 125 square yards, (iii) built-up houses on 
plot sizes 125 and 200 square yards and (iv) apartments having 2, 3 
and 4 bedrooms. Residential plots were priced between Rs. 8,600/- 
per square yard to 14,250 square yards. Commercial plots were 
priced between Rs.99,600 to Rs,100,000/- per square yard.  In 
February, 2014 an overseas block of the scheme was also launched 
offering plots to non-resident Pakistanis at rates charged in US dollars, 
which were relatively higher than what were offered to the general 
public. Bahria then started developing its scheme in Dehs that were 
part of MDA’s notified area and that too in absence of any lawful 
agreement to launch its scheme with MDA. Thus Bahria expanded its 
scheme in five Dehs falling within MDA’s controlled area namely Deh 
Bolhari, Deh Langhaji, Deh Konkar, Deh Kharkharo and Deh Kathore. 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
88
Several copies of the minutes of MDA’s Board meetings of 2013 and 
2014 have been filed but none of them reflect that Bahria was 
granted permission to launch its scheme on the land falling within 
MDA’s controlled area. On the contrary at that point in time MDA 
had sent another summary dated 21.01.2014 to the then Chief 
Minister wherein nine Dehs of controlled area were identified for 
launch of MDA’s own housing schemes. In the said summary there 
was no mention of allowing Bahria to launch its own scheme in any 
Deh falling in MDA’s controlled area.    
 
4. 
 
While the work on Bahria Town scheme was underway 
on the land on which MDA on papers was planning to launch its own 
schemes, Bahria set out four of its agents on a shopping spree to 
purchase whatever land they could find in other Dehs falling in 
MDA’s controlled area with the sole intention to exchange the same 
for the land in Dehs on which Bahria had already launched its 
scheme. These four agents then claimed to have succeeded in 
‘purchasing’ 7068 acres of small and medium sized scattered parcels 
of land located at scores of far flung locations of thirty-nine notified 
Dehs. It has come on the record that in many cases, title of owners 
who had sold their land to the agents of Bahria was either not 
complete as their co-owners had not agreed to sell their share or the 
title of certain lands was not duly verified. However, Bahria’s agents 
very conveniently and in no time succeeded in exchanging the land 
they claimed to have lawfully purchased with the land which Bahria 
had already occupied and commenced work on its scheme since 
January, 2014. Thus, it is apparent that the Bahria Town Scheme was 
launched at a time when Bahria’s agents had not even completed 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
89
their task of purchasing lands, which could be exchanged with MDA. 
Satellite imageries of the township also confirm that Bahria had 
started development work on the ground by constructing roads and 
carving out plots soon after inviting applications from the general 
public in January, 2014 i.e. much before the agents of Bahria had 
completed their task to purchase land in far flung areas which were 
to be offered in exchange. Thus, it has become quite apparent that 
Bahria entered upon MDA’s controlled area for launching of its own 
scheme without any written authorization in this behalf from MDA. It is 
for this reason that no demarcation of the land that was to be 
assigned for Bahria’s scheme was ever carried out. One cannot 
imagine that MDA would allow Bahria to invite applications from the 
general public and enter upon a very vast expanse of land falling 
within its controlled area starting right from main Super Highway 
without any backdoor understanding.  
  
5. 
 
From the minutes of several meetings held by MDA’s 
Board and the summaries sent to the then Chief Minister in the years 
2013 and 2014, it is evident that Malir Development Authority Act, 
1993 was revived in November, 2013 and its Board constituted to 
facilitate launching of its own schemes in eleven out of forty-three 
Dehs falling within its controlled area. For such purpose, MDA also 
hired services of Logix Private Limited on 03.09.2014 for a hefty fee of 
Rs.280 million to act as its consultant in the preparation of master 
program Scheme No. 2 to 4. It is also astonishing to note that MDA 
hired services of yet another consultant namely ECIL in the same year 
i.e. 2014 for another hefty fee of Rs.280 million to act as its consultant 
in the preparation of master program No.1, Scheme 1 on the 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
90
remaining thirty-two Dehs falling within its controlled area. The entire 
paperwork of MDA’s intentions to launch its own schemes after 
engaging two consultants for a hefty consultation fees of Rs.560 
Million as is evident from several minutes of the meetings and 
summaries sent to the then Chief Minister seems to be was just a 
hoax, an eye wash. The quiet understanding was to allow Bahria to 
launch its own housing scheme in five Dehs and derive whatever 
benefits it can. Thus most prized piece of land in MDA’s entire 
controlled area located near the developed area of Karachi was 
quietly allowed to go into the hands of Bahria merely on the pretext 
of exchange for scores of scattered parcels of lands located in the 
remote parts of thirty-nine Dehs, title of which too was not entirely 
free form doubt. 
 
6. 
 
Malir Development Authority (MDA) as the name 
suggests, is an entity entrusted with the obligation to plan, develop 
and execute housing schemes in its controlled area. It was argued 
that MDA allowed Bahria to launch its scheme on account of its 
financial constraints. The MDA’s record show that the main reason 
that prompted MDA to launch its housing schemes in the year 2013 
was to generate funds to ameliorate its precarious financial 
condition. This object could have only been achieved had MDA itself 
sold plots to the general public and not by giving up land in its prized 
five Dehs to Bahria, which then went on to occupy 12157 acres of 
land. What a pity that MDA with the largest government land 
available at its disposal in the city of Karachi which would have 
made it the most financially viable public sector development 
authority of the province, squandered the opportunity in favour of 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
91
Bahria at a stage when it was a cash strapped entity. Record also 
reflects that MDA has benevolently worked out the value of 7068 
acres of most priced land in MDA’s controlled area at Rs.6.12 Billion. 
This value for land located in the city which is commercial hub of the 
country is ridiculously low. This reminds me of the value of land having 
the potential to be utilized for housing that was prevalent at about 
the same time i.e. four or five years ago in Matli, District Badin, Sindh 
where I am from. There the value of land on the outskirts of Matli 
Town for its utilization for housing at that time was around 
Rs.5,000,000/- (five million rupees) per acre. Matli is only a town, it is 
not even a district. 95% of the readers of this opinion would not even 
know whether any town by this name exists. Here we are dealing 
with land located in Sindh’s largest city which is not only a port city 
but the commercial hub of the entire country.  
 
7. 
 
It is also surprising to note that in the written arguments 
counsel for Bahria has claimed that apart from the price of 7068 
acres of land, Rs.8889.064 Million, in other words Rs.8.89 Billion are also 
payable to MDA towards various charges, scrutiny fee, advertising 
charges, town planning fee etc. out of which 3754.136 Million have 
been paid and the balance Rs.5134.928 Million is outstanding. This 
can’t be correct. It is unimaginable that above referred charges 
could be to the extent of Rs.8889.064 Million or Rs.8.89 Billion 
exceeding even the value assessed by MDA for 7068 acres of its 
land. The quantum of such charges appear to be misleading. 
Considering the stature of the counsel who have stated so in his 
written submissions, hopefully such misleading figures may not have 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
92
been deliberately stated and could be on account of some 
typographical mistake.    
 
8. 
 
It is claimed that Bahria is presently in occupation of 
12156 acres of land, well beyond 7068 acres occupied in exchange 
for scattered parcels of lands located in the thirty-nine Dehs. Let us as 
an example work out an approximate financial worth of atleast these 
7068 acres only, which can be done on the basis of facts and figures 
that have come on the record. When 40% of 7068 acres i.e. 2,827 
acres are excluded on account of its utilization for amenities such as 
roads, pathways, mosques, parks and other public places etc., the 
remaining 60% area i.e. 4241 acres could safely be presumed as 
marketable land, having the potential of being offered for sale as 
residential and commercial plots, built-up houses and apartment 
buildings or put to other revenue generating enterprises of Bahria 
Town itself. The area of 60% of marketable land translates into i.e. 
20,525,472 square yards. 7% of this marketable area could safely be 
said to come under commercial use and the remaining 93% under 
residential. The average price for commercial plot fixed by Bahria 
itself in its advertisements in the year 2014 was Rs.99,600/- per square 
yard. This commercial rate for 7% of marketable land (1,436,783 
square 
yards) 
at 
the 
advertised 
rate 
translates 
into 
Rs.143,103,591,000/-. 
The 
remaining 
93% 
of 
marketable 
land 
(19,088,689 square yards) at an average rate at which Bahria sold 
residential plots to the general public i.e. Rs.10,000/- per square yard 
translates into Rs.190,886,890,000/-. Both these estimates of residential 
and commercial use are for 60% of 7068 acres only. The value of the 
remaining 40% land has not been taken into consideration as the 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
93
same is allocated for various public amenities such as roads, 
pathways, mosques, parks and other public places etc. It may be 
clarified here that Bahria’s financial gains from constructed built-up 
residential houses, apartment buildings as well as other revenue 
generating facilities in the scheme have not been taken into 
consideration in the above estimates as profits made therefrom does 
not relate to estimating the financial worth of the marketable land 
out of 7068 acres of land. This value on the basis of above 
computation can be summed up as follows: -    
 
Value of commercial utilization of land: 
Rs.143,103,591,000/ -
Value of residential utilization of land:            Rs.190,886,890,000/-  
Total value of both the above:  
 
Rs.333,990,481,000/- 
 
From the above revenue estimate of approximately 334 billion rupees 
following estimated expenses can safely be deducted to arrive at 
the net gain which Bahria would have eventually made from 
marketable land only. 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                               In Billions Rupees 
 
Estimated revenue as worked out above: 
 
 
 
334 
   
Less: planning and consultancy charges etc.: 
 
  2         
 
20% of revenue for infrastructure/ amenities: 
 
67 
  
 
Management, admin expense: 
 
 
 
  7  
 
10% of total revenue for Bahria as its role of   
property developer: 
 
 
 
 
 
33  
 
 
Total deductions from gross earnings from land only:     109 
109 
Net estimated gain from marketable land:  
 
 
 225 
 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
94
9. 
 
From the above estimate of net gain it is quite apparent 
that Bahria could exclusively make a whopping 225 Billion Rupee 
from 7068 acres of land at the cost of MDA surrendering its role as a 
real estate development authority. Had MDA launched its own 
schemes on the land in question with all sincerity and honesty and 
had hired services of experienced and reputable real-estate 
consultants and land developers or for that matter even entrusted 
the development and planning works to Bahria for a hefty fee even 
then notwithstanding the incompetency and lack of vision of its 
management, the net gain for MDA would have atleast been 
somewhere around 150 Billion Rupees as against the 225 Billion 
Rupees of net estimated earnings which Bahria was going to make 
from 7068 acres of land. What a charity on the part of MDA at the 
state expense to say the least whose own job is to plan, develop and 
execute such schemes and not to barter away land which it 
obtained from the Board of Revenue at concessional rates for 
launching its own schemes. What a pity that MDA, with the largest 
government land available at its disposal in the city of Karachi and 
with it came the opportunity of becoming the most financially viable 
public sector development authority of the province threw the 
opportunity out of the window and continue to remain a cash-
strapped entity not having sufficient funds even to pay for the 
salaries of its employees in time.   
 
10. 
 
MDA had the chance to generate a huge amount of 
money which would have been used for developing other areas 
falling under its controlled areas but it squandered the opportunity. 
The functionaries of MDA and Government of Sindh very graciously 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
95
allowed its most prized land located in its controlled area near the 
developed area of Karachi to be occupied by Bahria and to justify 
such occupation got it exchanged for scattered parcels of lands 
located in the most remote parts of thirty-nine Dehs was used in 
defence. Even if it is presumed that wrong decision on the part of 
MDA and the Government of Sindh was on account of their 
inefficiency and incompetency, if not for anything else, all this has 
caused a colossal financial loss to MDA which cannot be ignored 
and must be probed into. The exchange in question even otherwise 
is prohibited under Section 17 of the Colonization of Government 
Lands Act, 1912 and there is a sound reason for that. The status of 
Qabooli land is that of a freehold property. Its ownership is in 
perpetuity, hence vests in the person who owns it in absolute terms. 
The reason behind imposing prohibition on exchange of Qabooli 
land with the land granted by government on lease is that land 
granted on lease, be it for 30 years, 99 years or any other term, 
becomes a source of income for the government. Upon expiry of 
lease period the same becomes renewable only on payment of 
lease money. If such land is exchanged with Qabooli land then the 
person who has surrendered Qabooli land for leased land may claim 
that his title to the exchanged land be also treated the same i.e. in 
perpetuity as was held by him in the Qabooli land which he gave in 
exchange. The legislature did not intend to allow such a claim to 
arise as it would close a perpetual source of income for the 
government upon expiry of lease period, which is necessary to 
augment financial resources to runs its affairs. It is for this reason that 
prohibition on exchange with Qabooli land has remained in force on 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
96
land that is granted under the provisions of Section 10 of the 
Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912.     
 
11. 
 
Bahria Town Scheme no doubt has a dynamic modern 
design and its layout gives a spectacular look and is also being well 
organized by its management but does that mean that this should 
be one of the considerations in overlooking the illegality committed 
in the transfer of MDA’s land in its favour. From the voluminous record 
of MDA placed on record it is established that no Board meeting of 
MDA was held in which decision was taken as to what land from its 
controlled area was to be handed over to Bahria for its scheme, 
what to speak of settling the terms and conditions on which it was to 
be handed over. It is for this reason that no site plan was prepared to 
show on what date, how much land, from which Dehs and with what 
boundaries is being handed over by MDA to Bahria. Presently Bahria 
is in occupation of 12157 acres in the above referred five notified 
Dehs which MDA had acquired from Board of Revenue at 
concessional rates for launching its own schemes. It is really 
astounding that Bahria first occupied most valuable land available in 
MDA’s controlled area without any legal process and straight away 
launched its scheme and later requested MDA to exchange the land 
under its occupation for several parcels of land which Bahria at its 
own convenience had purchased through its agents in far off 
scattered locations of thirty-nine Dehs and MDA and Government of 
Sindh bent backwards in obliging it and quietly abandoned the 
launch of MDA’s housing schemes on such land. Bahria may have 
the reputation of being one of the leading property developers of 
Asia but then it should do its business on legitimately acquired land. 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
97
Bahria’s remarkable reputation as property developer cannot weigh 
in when the validity and legality of the state land that it had 
occupied is examined. I, therefore, entirely agree with the 
comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion of my learned brother, 
Ejaz Afzal Khan, J declaring the whole transaction between MDA 
and Bahria to be nullity in the eyes of law.  
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Dated: 4th of May, 2018. 
    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.376-K OF 2014 IN S.M.C. NO.16 OF 2011. 
98
 ORDER OF THE COURT 
With the majority of two by one, the final order of this Court is 
recorded in paragraph 18 above of the majority judgement.  
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
JUDGE  
 
 
Islamabad  
04 May 2018 
Barrister Sohaib Shahid