Rawalpindi court issues contempt notices to railways officers

Additional District and Sessions Judge Chaudhry Qasim Javed has issued show-cause notices for contempt of court to four railway officers and the station house officers (SHOs) of Railway and Ratta police stations. The notices follow a major operation on 12 kanals and eight marlas of commercial land in Rawalpindi claimed by a citizen as his ancestral property.

The respondents have been summoned to submit their replies on 5 November. The court admitted the petition for hearing and issued the notices, which means the officers must now explain why contempt proceedings should not go ahead. A show-cause notice is not a finding of guilt. It is the first step in a process that tests whether a court order was disobeyed.

The dispute centres on land near the railway station in Rawalpindi. The petitioner, Khalid Mahmood, maintains that the land belonged to his family since before the creation of Pakistan. He says his father transferred the property to him in 1976 and that he submitted the registered deed from that year to the court.

What the petitioner alleges

In his contempt petition, Mahmood claimed that the commercial land was worth billions of rupees and that poor families had been living in makeshift and permanent houses there for 40 years. He questioned the authority of the railway department to conduct the operation when he had no objection to their residence on the land.

He alleged that Divisional Engineer (DN) Railway Rawalpindi Tayyab Riaz, Shahzaib and Nasir Jadoon arrived with railway personnel, police and cranes. They allegedly threw ground red pepper into the eyes of women and children in house after house, leaving them in distress. When the affected residents went to hospital, all their houses were bulldozed, destroying valuable household belongings and the dowry articles of their daughters, he claimed.

He further alleged that the railway authorities had forcibly occupied his ancestral land, amounting to contempt of court and an abuse of power. The petitioner requested contempt proceedings against the railway officers and the SHOs concerned, along with an order for compensation for the losses suffered.

These are allegations made in a petition. The railway officers and police officials named have not yet filed their replies, and the court has not yet decided whether the operation breached any order.

Why a stay order is central to the case

A case concerning the same property is pending before a civil court, where a stay order has been issued, according to the petition. A stay order is a court direction that freezes the position on the ground while a dispute is decided. It does not decide who owns the land. It prevents either side from changing the facts on the ground until the court has ruled.

That is why the petitioner’s case is framed as contempt rather than as a fresh ownership claim. If a stay order was in force, and if the demolition went ahead despite it, the question for the court is whether its order was disobeyed. If no stay order covered the operation, or if the operation was lawful for another reason, the contempt case will fail.

The distinction matters for the residents as well. Even if the contempt petition succeeds, it will not by itself settle ownership of the 12 kanals and eight marlas. That question remains before the civil court, which will decide it on title documents, including the 1976 registered deed relied on by the petitioner, and any competing claim by the railways.

What happens on 5 November

On 5 November, the respondents must submit their replies. The court will then consider whether the operation breached the stay order, whether the officers had notice of it, and whether any defence applies.

Contempt proceedings carry serious consequences, including fines and imprisonment in some cases, but they are also narrow in scope. The court will focus on disobedience of its own order, not on the wider merits of the land dispute.

For the families who lost their houses, the compensation claim is a separate question. The petitioner has asked the court for an order for compensation for losses suffered, including household belongings and dowry articles. Whether compensation follows will depend on the court’s findings on the operation and on proof of loss.

• The Express Tribune, “Railways officers face contempt notices” (29 October 2026): https://tribune.com.pk/story/2637516/railways-officers-face-contempt-notices