ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on Monday expressed displeasure during the hearing of a property distribution case from Wazirabad, after one party denied the sisterhood of a litigant, prompting the court to seek a written affidavit.
During the proceedings, Chief Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan questioned the rationale behind multiple judicial decisions that reportedly allocated the shares of four sisters to a single sister, reports APP.
As the hearing progressed, counsel for one of the petitioner sisters argued that a previous court decision emerged after one sister had challenged the original distribution of the property.
On the other hand, the counsel representing Sardar Begum informed the court that when his client sought her share in the inheritance, her status as a sister was denied outright. At this point, Chief Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan inquired whether Sardar Begum was not the daughter of Abdullah. In response, the petitioner’s counsel maintained that Sardar Begum was not Abdullah’s daughter. The court then directed that if so, a written affidavit be submitted to substantiate the claim.
The court was further informed that following father’s death, the property had initially been distributed in 1989 among three sisters and two brothers. However, in 2018, one of the sisters, Noreen, challenged the distribution in court. Subsequently, the commissioner revenue ruled in favor of Noreen regarding the division of land.
It was also submitted that a fourth sister, Sardar Begum, had approached the Lahore High Court seeking to be made a party to the case, upon which the high court had clearly ordered that she be granted her share in the property. Later, the Federal Constitutional Court adjourned the hearing of the case until April 8.
Meanwhile, the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC)on Monday sought relevant record form the government pertaining to the proposed legislation in Gilgit-Baltistan and adjourned further proceedings for date-in-office (Indefinite period).
A three-member bench, headed by Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi, heard the case. Justice Rizvi questioned why permission was being sought from the court for legislation, as it was a political matter that the government should resolve itself.
The judge warned that if parliamentary matters were brought before the court, it would open a new “Pandora’s box,” after which the court would have to issue notices to all parties. He remarked that the government often complained about judicial interference, yet such political matters were being brought to the court.
Similarly, Justice Rozi Khan observed that it was purely a political matter and directed that the government should consult senior politicians on the proposed legislation. Additional Attorney General Aamir Rehman clarified that the government had full authority to legislate, but permission was required in light of a previous Supreme Court decision.
He explained that the proposed legislation aimed to incorporate pensions for the chief judge and other judges of Gilgit-Baltistan into law, and that a proposal to fix the term of Gilgit-Baltistan Assembly members at five years was also under consideration.
Justice K.K. Agha remarked that it appeared that the government was in a hurry, as it usually did not act with such speed. Later, the court adjourned the hearing for date-in-office (Indefinite period).
