SC reserves verdict in Railways’ land case

SC reserves verdict in the award of a 49-years’ lease on land for Royal Palm Golf Club, Lahore by Pakistan Railways.

Qaiser Zulfiqar March 19, 2011


The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Friday reserved its verdict in the award of a 49-years’ lease on land for the Royal Palm Golf Club, Lahore by Pakistan Railways.

Mian Allah Nawaz, counsel for petitioner Ishaq Khakwani, informed the division bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhary that the agreement violated Article 4 of the Constitution.

Director General Audit Railways Irfan Jahangir maintained that due to lack of transparency in the agreement, the same tender was approved twice with a different set of terms and conditions. The contract was signed the same day the lease was approved and later, the file of the illegal agreement inked in 2001 was misplaced.

Makhdum Ali Khan, counsel for Husnain Construction Company which was awarded the tender for the Royal Palm Golf Club, submitted that his client has made an investment of Rs1.5 billion on the leased land. The firm will also pay Rs10 billion for the lease, he said.

Khan said it is the sole responsibility of the Pakistan Railways if the deal is not transparent, adding that his client is innocent.

On Thursday, the auditor-general Pakistan Railways informed the Supreme Court that the deal with the Royal Palm Golf Club had caused Rs290 million loss to the organisation.

His claim was contested by Royal Palm’s counsel.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 19th, 2011.


shaheen | 10 years ago | Reply Land grab has been the norm in Pakistan and it has mainly been initiated by our generals, who are buliding Defense housing complexes on the lands grabbed by froce from poor farmers. Railways golf club must return to it rightfull owners or the present owners must be forced to pay the penalties and the correct price they should have paid whne they bribed general Musharaf to grab the club.
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ


Most Read