In response to a suo motu notice given by SC, CDA Chairperson Imtiaz Inayat Elahi said that Senator Bokhari had assured them to return the authority’s 154 kanals and 11 marlas whenever they asked for it. However at the moment CDA did not have any plans for it.
In response Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday, part of a three-member bench headed by Chief Justice (CJ) Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, said that if CDA did not need land then why was it paying huge sums of money to private firms and societies to take back its land from time to time.
Justice Ghulam Rabbani said, “If authority can not get the possession of its acquired land then [why was it acquired in the first place]?”
The land is part of 20,000 acres that CDA acquired back in 1960s for development. However it did not take possession of the land and the original owners gradually start development projects of their own.
The court took suo motu notice of the issue on a letter written by Imran Khan, chairperson of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf.
In his letter, Khan had said out that a leading English daily pointed out that people had grabbed CDA land on both sides of Saleem Omar Road, leading to Bani Gala in Islamabad’s Zone-III.
Khan alleged that Nayyar Bokhari and his relatives had occupied the civic body’s land with the “connivance” of CDA officials.
“I talked to CDA chairperson but he was afraid of Bokhari,” Khan said in his letter.
Bokhari challenged Khan’s letter in the court.
“Imran Khan has floated propaganda against me on political basis,” Bokhari alleged.
The court, however, disregarded Bokhari’s challenge, termed the occupation as a “criminal offence” and asked the authority to take possession of the land.
An angry Bokhari
When Justice Chaudhry was dictating SC’s order and reached to the point “the court asked CDA to take over the possession from Nayyar Bokhari”, Senator Bokhari stood up and shouted, “I did not occupy any land, I stand here.”
The chief justice responded, “You know law very well, I enrolled you as Supreme Court advocate and this is not the way to talk in the court.”
A precedent is set
During the case hearing, the chief justice asked Elahi why the authority had not taken the land’s possession. The chairperson said that there were “some technical problems” as the land was acquired in 1960s and the possession was never taken from the original owners.
Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday said that the matter was simple and it was CDA’s negligence that was responsible for the problem.
In response Elahi said that CDA would use the court’s verdict as a precedent and force all “encroachers” to surrender the remaining land.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 12th, 2011.
1714024018-0/ModiLara-(1)1714024018-0-270x192.webp)
COMMENTS (1)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ