Lahore: LHC seeks detail of revenue men`s assets
LAHORE: Lahore High Court Chief Justice (CJ) Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry on Tuesday directed the Lahore district coordination officer (DCO) to furnish details of assets of tehsildars, naib tehsildars and patwaris. DCO Ahad Cheema appeared in the court to defend his position in a case against Kahna circle patwari Mahboob Sarwar, who did not issue fard malkiat (title deed) to a petitioner despite court orders.
“Do you know what patwaris are doing under your nose?” the chief justice asked the DCO at the outset. The chief justice pointed out that fards were being issued by patwaris after taking bribe up to Rs1,500,000.
Expressing concern over malpractices of patwaris, the chief justice advised the chief minister to take action against corrupt patwaris or quit his office and directed the DCO to convey his (CJ’s) concern to the chief minister.
Justice Chaudhry said the revenue department was the most corrupt department in the country but it appeared that the authorities concerned had turned a blind eye to the issue.
“Patwaris have been living in bungalows and they never work without taking gratification,” the chief justice added.
The CJ admonished the DCO for ignoring malpractices in the revenue department and also criticised the ongoing anti-encroachment drive. The CJ said bribe was being taken from encroachers for not taking action against them.
The petitioner’s counsel informed the court that fard had been issued and the grievance of his client had been addressed. However, the chief justice observed that the court would not abandon the matter simply on issuance of the document.
The CJ adjourned hearing till Aug 12 and directed the DCO to furnish details of assets of patwaris and other revenue officials.
Petitioner Khalid Saeed petitioned out that on his writ petition, a bench of the high court had directed the Kahna circle patwari to issue him fard malkiat without any delay, but the patwari ignored the court orders. He said he also approached the DCO for the implementation of court orders but in vain. The petitioner sought contempt of court proceedings against the DCO for not complying with the court orders.