Land grabbing case: Lahore High Court rejects Riaz’s petition

Anti-Corruption Establishment now free to arrest the property tycoon.

Mudassir Raja July 25, 2012


The Rawalpindi bench of the Lahore High Court (LHC) on Tuesday dismissed a petition filed by property developer Malik Riaz to quash an arrest warrant issued by an anti-corruption court against him.

A two-judge bench, comprising Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmed Khan and Justice Ibadur Rehman Lodhi, set aside Riaz’s plea against an arrest warrant issued by a trial judge on July 23.

Riaz’s counsel, Advocate Dr Basit maintained that the Anti-Corruption Establishment (ACE) could not issue arrest warrants since a legal battle between the ACE Rawalpindi and the National Accountability Bureau had settled the issue of which agency would investigate the cases of alleged land grabbing.

Dr Basit added that the issue of jurisdiction of either investigation agency should have been referred to the Supreme Court as the matter involved the federal and provincial governments.

The bench dismissed the petition, observing that in the petition filed by the ACE against NAB, the high court had stopped both agencies from taking any action till the final disposal of the petition.

A trial judge had repeatedly issued arrest warrants for Malik Riaz and his son Ahmed Ali Riaz after the ACE had claimed that there was enough evidence against them in a land grabbing case.

After the dismissal of Malik’s plea, the ACE is now free to arrest the property tycoon on charges of land grabbing through fictitious mutations.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 25th, 2012.


Kamil | 11 years ago | Reply

MAlik Riaz is grabbing land of poor Pakistanis

AnisAqeel | 11 years ago | Reply

What happened with daddy's laadla? Judiciary is effectively destroying the atmosphere of encouraging to come forward and expose those who black mail for kick backs and whistle blowing. What a justice!!!

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ