KARACHI: The computerisation of government land record in Karachi and the rest of Sindh worth billions of rupees is moving at a snail’s pace, with authorities failing to live up to claims of correcting the record and making it error-free.
There are reports of corruption worth billions of rupees in the name of computerisation of land record while a large scale corruption can be unearthed if investigations are initiated against Secretary of the Reform Wing and Special Cell (R&S) Syed Zulfiqar Shah and other officers.
According to sources, Shah has been occupying this post for a record period of seven years. He has been using unusual ways of computerisation of data to justify his stay.
On the one hand, he made illegal recruitments in the department on the pretext that the department needed more staff, and on the other he assigned the task of computerisation of land record of Sindh to three private companies in exchange of billions of rupees.
According to sources, public circles have expressed serious reservations over the plans of spending Rs10 billion through private companies – namely RTV Services, ULSC and AA Quality Builders.
The sources said that a survey of 92 villages was claimed and in a reply submitted to the Supreme Court in 2014 it was said that survey numbers had been assigned; however, the process is yet to be completed.
According to sources, there are different positions on the GOSPK website and maps of the villages. It was announced that demarcation will be done by erecting stones in every village but this process is completed only in two to three villages while 90 villages are still without such stone marks. Millions of rupees allocated for the task have been usurped.
According to sources, Sindh Revenue Minister Makhdoom Jameeluzzaman had taken notice of the matter, but since the officer was powerful, the issue was brushed under the carpet (Translated by Arshad Shaheen)
Published in The Express Tribune, December 2nd, 2016.
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ