Non-payment of compensation to woman annoys SC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Thursday expressed annoyance with the Land Revenue Board Punjab for not paying compensation to a woman petitioner for her land and directed the department to pay money within two months.

The apex court said the Punjab government had admitted the ownership of Bashiran Bibi for the land where a district complex was constructed. But the question is how much compensation she will be paid? If the government recognizes the ownership of an individual, it is beyond understanding why the compensation has not been given. During the hearing, Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa expressed annoyance with officials for using the word “Sahib” for a member of Land Revenue Board and said the purpose of public servants was to serve the public. Using the word “Sahib” with the member’s name shows a certain mindset. There is no provision in the Constitution to use the word “Sahib” for public servants.

A three-member bench headed by Justice Isa heard the case. During the hearing, the director Land Revenue Punjab adopted the stance that the department had started the procedure to pay compensation amount to the said woman. Justice Athar Minallah noted that the court had been told after one year that the procedure had been started to pay compensation. The court said it would summon the member Land Revenue Board in person if compensation was not paid within two months.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of Pakistan imposed a fine of Rs100,000 on a lawyer for wasting the court’s time in a case pertaining to a property matter. A three-member bench of the top court headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa heard the case. The court in its remarks said baseless litigation was demonstrated by the petitioner. It said that the court generally showed flexibility. The petitioner had also filed frivolous litigation in the past and so is fined. It said the amount of fine should be paid to the parties and there was a civil court forum for non-payment of damages.

It may be noted that a high court had earlier fined the petitioner Rs 200,000 for frivolous litigation.