IHC Maintains Stay, Protecting Islamabad’s D-12 Graveyard
Justice Muhammad Azam Khan grants respondents further time to file replies; petitioner’s counsel alleges an attempted operation despite the court’s interim protection.
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court has maintained its interim order protecting a graveyard in Sari Saral, Sector D-12, while granting the Capital Development Authority and other respondents additional time to submit their replies, according to the latest hearing account supplied to Islamabad Tribune.
Justice Muhammad Azam Khan adjourned the proceedings after the respondents’ replies were not submitted, the account stated.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel alleged that personnel had arrived to carry out an operation a day earlier despite the existing stay order. The allegation represents counsel’s submission; the available account does not establish an independently verified finding that the order was breached.
Court Reportedly Warns Against Non-Compliance
According to the supplied account, Justice Khan warned that any violation of the court’s directions could result in contempt proceedings and imprisonment. The account also attributes a warning of a six-month sentence to the judge.
These reported oral observations should be distinguished from an actual conviction or sentencing order. The hearing account does not report that any official was convicted or sentenced during the proceedings.
The judge reportedly directed that the court’s warning be communicated to the institutions concerned.
Earlier Order Required the Graveyard’s Preservation
Previously published reporting identified the petitioner as Waqar Ahmed and the disputed site as the Elahi Mosque graveyard in Mauza Sari Saral.
The petition sought protection for ancestral graves and requested that development activities affecting the burial ground be prevented. The earlier interim order required the existing condition of the graveyard to be maintained and sought a written response from the CDA.
The case therefore concerns protection of the identified burial ground while the court considers the parties’ positions. The interim restraint should not be described as a final determination of land ownership or the petition’s merits.
Replies and Further Proceedings Awaited
The latest supplied account states that the court allowed further time for replies and adjourned the case. It does not specify the next hearing date.
The respondents’ substantive position on the alleged attempted operation is not contained in that account. Their replies and the court’s subsequent written directions will be necessary to establish the next procedural steps and the precise scope of any further orders.
