LAHORE: The Supreme Court on Thursday wrapped up the case of Khokhar brothers – Afzal Khojhar and Saiful Mulook Khokhar – facing charges of land grabbing at the SC’s Lahore Registry, ARY News reported.
The court ordered the relevant authorities to take the action as per law. The decision was given by a three-member Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Manzoor Ahmed.
The Board of Revenue, Lahore Development Authority, commissioner Lahore and other relevant departments also submitted their report in the case.
Read: Afzal Khokhar arrested from SC in land grabbing case
The judge ordered the authorities to take action keeping in view merits of the case. The court directed the Khokhar brothers to contact relevant forums to get their name struck off from the Exit Control List.
He said institutions were supposed to work under their domain.
Later speaking to media, Saiful Mulook Khokhar said neither he nor did his brother spoke against any institution.
In December last year, police had arrested Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz (PML-N) lawmaker Afzal Khokhar from the Supreme Court registry in Lahore for allegedly illegally occupying a piece of land in the provincial capital.
Afzal was released on post-arrest bail by a judicial magistrate the next day. The Excise and Taxation Department’s director general on January 3 had provided the asset details of Khokhar brothers to the Anti-Corruption Establishment.
Khokhar brothers have a total of seven properties in the province. The ‘Khokhar Palace’, said the officials, belongs to Afzal Khokhar and Shafi Khokhar.
Saiful Mulook Khokhar and Shafi Khokhar owned 21 and 11 shops respectively at Sher Ali Raad, the officials said and added that Saiful Mulook Khokhar owned a two kanal godown at Multan road. Another house in Samsani Town belonged to Shafi Khokhar.
According to the FIR, a piece of land measuring 34 marla was purchased from a citizen, Tariq Mehmood, which Khokhar illegally occupied and constructed his residence, Khokhar Palace.
The complaint was registered with the police station on the directives of the apex court.
Leave a Comment