Alleged land grabbing: SC disposes of case against Lt-Gen (retd) Faiz Hameed

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has disposed of a petition filed against former Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Lt-Gen (retd) Faiz Hameed, accusing him of land grabbing by TopCity-1 owner Kunwar Moeez Ahmed Khan.

Earlier, the petitioner throung his counsel Hafiz-ur-Rehman requested the court to allow his client to furnish evidence against Faiz Hameed regarding the alleged land grabbing.

The petitioner had filed his plea in the human rights cell (HRC) of the Supreme Court, seeking action against Lt-Gen (retd) Faiz Hameed and others over alleged land grabbing and stealing valuables from his house during a raid.

A three-member bench led by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa, and consisting of Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Aminuddin Khan heard the case.

The court stated that the petitioner had access to appropriate legal forums and disposed of the petition without delving into the merits of the case.

At the onset of the hearing, Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa remarked that the petitioner had made allegations against certain individuals, and questioned whether the plea fall under the purview of Article 184(3).

Supreme Court’s decision to nullify NAB amendments challenged

Justice Athar Minallah, in response, sought to clarify the distinction between the human rights cell and the Supreme Court, emphasizing that the cell lacked legal authority or status. He commented, “The human rights cell is a great source of injustice,” and asserted that no chief justice could take any action that was not of a judicial nature.

Justice Aminuddin Khan questioned where the present case aligned with Supreme Court rules. Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa noted that according to the Constitution and the law, no chief justice or judge could proceed with cases in chambers. He explained that chamber hearings were only permissible for appeals against the registrar’s objections.

The Supreme Court declared the practice of conducting hearings for human rights cases in chambers during former CJP Saqib Nisar’s tenure illegal.

Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa clarified that chambers were reserved solely for scheduling case hearings, and no chief justice had the authority to issue orders in chambers.

The Supreme Court directed the petitioner, Moeez Khan, to explore alternative forums for pursuing the case.

Additionally, the court suggested that approaching the defense ministry could be an option when dealing with allegations against a retired army officer.

In his plea, the petitioner had stated that on May 12, 2017, a raid was conducted at his house and office on the orders of General (retd) Faiz Hamid. He said that “valuables and records of our private housing society were stolen during the raid. The purpose of the raid against him was to take control of Top City-1.
“After the raid, I and my five colleagues were arrested and unjustly detained. The federal government initiated action against Gen (retd) Faiz Hamid, his brother Najaf, and others.

The whole proceeding

The land grabbing plea against Faiz Hamid was filed in the Supreme Court’s human rights cell (HRC). Chief Justice Justice Qazi Faez Isa led the bench during the hearing. During the hearing, Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa addressed the petitioner’s counsel and stated that “the allegations in your petition are serious. The petitioner’s counsel requested to pause the hearing of the case, to which chief justice said that they will not grant adjournment, and asked him to prepare for the case.

Chief Justice Justice Faez Isa inquired from the lawyer, “What should the court do?” The petitioner’s counsel suggested giving the order to the defence ministry as it was the competent authority for such actions.

The chief justice asked if this case had earlier been presented before the court. To which the petitioner’s counsel stated that “our petition is being heard for the first time.”:

The chief justice said that there are two petitions before the court, and the case of Pakistani expat Zahida Javed Aslam who had filed a petition in SC’s HRC, alleging that TopCity-1 owner Khan transferred her properties in his own name fraudulently, and we have stopped the practice of giving dates.”

The chief justice, while talking to petitioner’s counsel Hafiz-ur-Rehman, said, ” Chaudhry Sahib if you are not prepared, then you may go home. What we have understood from this case so far, we are telling you.” British national Zahida Aslam filed a case under Article 184/3 in the Supreme Court in 2017. Former Chief Justice Saqib Nisar dismissed the case in the chamber in November 2018.”

The chief justice then asked, “Can the chief justice dispose of the case in the chamber as a single judge? Former Chief Justice Saqib Nisar himself issued notices to the FIA, police, and the CTD of this nature. A similar request was made to former Chief Justice Gulzar as well. Requests under Article 184/3 have been filed in the Supreme Court’s Human Rights Cell, which is also filed under Article 184/3 in front of us.”

To this, Justice Athar Minallah said, “There is a difference between the Human Rights Cell and the Supreme Court. I have given a decision in the high court that the Human Rights Cell is illegal. The Human Rights Cell is not established under any law. The worst injustices have happened in the past through the Human Rights Cell. No chief justice can take cognizance of matters outside their legal jurisdiction. How was a case heard that did not even come under the judicial jurisdiction?”

The chief justice said, “Hafiz-ur-Rehman, you and Zahida Aslam’s case fall under Article 184/3.”

The lawyer said that “Zahida Aslam’s case does not fall under Article 184/3 because it was sub-judice in the civil court while our petition comes under Article 184/3 because this matter has not gone to any other forum.”

Senior lawyer Farooq H Naik’s said that a Supreme Court judge cannot take up cases in the chamber. Supreme Court judges sit only in the courts, and chamber appeals can only be heard in the chamber. Specific types of requests can be heard in the chamber.”

Former Attorney General Salman Aslam Butt said, “I agree with Farooq H Naik’s statements.”

To this, Justice Athar Minallah said, “Salman Butt Sahib, why did you not speak against the Human Rights Cell in the past. The Human Rights Cell was sending illegal notices to the government. Was it no the responsibility of the government to take up Human Rights Cell’s illegal notices in the court. Why didn’t you raise questions in the courts against the Human Rights Cell? Human Rights Cell has been functioning wrongly since 2010. No one raised their voice.”

After the hearing, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition against Faiz Hamid.”