Compensation proposed for demolition of an illegal kiosk
Inquiry recommends CDA develops SOPs, gives appeal rights to encroachers
Islamabad. PHOTO: EXPRESS
ISLAMABAD:
In what could be a major step in redressing grievances against the top civic agency of the federal capital demolishing encroachment without issuing due notices, an inquiry committee set up by the district administration has recommended that a kiosk-holder should be compensated for the loss of his equipment.
In December, the Enforcement Directorate of the Capital Development Authority (CDA), on the directives of the interior ministry, launched action against encroachments near the Quaid-i-Azam University (QAU) in the federal capital.
Inquiry documents, available with The Express Tribune, showed that the CDA deputed its officers to reconnoitre the area and identify any illegal structures. After a survey, three illegal structures were identified.
Thereafter, the CDA demolished those structures and destroyed equipment and goods contained within. The owners of one of the illegal structures — 20-year-old Maqsoom filed a complaint with the district magistrate that he had received no advance notice of the demolition, hence he was unable to evacuate his expensive machinery.
Based on the complaint, the district magistrate set up an inquiry committee comprising the Rural Assistant Commissioner Abdullah Mahmood. The magistrate also appointed High Court Advocate Umer Gilani was appointed as an amicus curiae in the case.
Maqsoom’s counsel, Imaan Mazari, contended that her client ran a photocopy business outside QAU in a kiosk. His kiosk, along with two other structures were demolished by the CDA on December 15 without salvaging its contents. His equipment, including two photocopy machines, computers, were also destroyed in the operation.
Mazari argued that her client never received a direct notice naming his establishment.
The CDA, however, contended that he was an encroacher who neither had a valid licence nor any other rights. Moreover, they argued that a public notice had been issued three days before the operation in the form of a notice published in newspapers and pasted the notice on the illegal structures.
Mazari, however, argued that even though Maqsoom was running an unlicenced stall, he still had certain inalienable rights under Section 49-C of the CDA Ordinance 1961.
“Written notice must be given to the “owner, occupier, user or person in control” of any “building, structure, work or land” which the CDA wishes to remove ore demolish in its anti-encroachment operation,” read the inquiry report, adding that the right to receive notice is not limited to lawful owners but to any occupiers of that property at that time and must be served individually.
The inquiry further found that no personal notice was issued either in his name nor in the name of his enterprise. Moreover, a notice was not pasted on his locked shop warning him of demolition to save his belongings.
The inquiry report subsequently recommended that departmental proceedings be initiated against the concerned CDA officials who failed to serve a notice to the complainant. It further recommended that the CDA develop and follow reasonable standard operating procedures (SOPs) for how anti-encroachment operations are to be carried out.
On the matter of compensation, the committee recommended the competent authority to decide it after reviewing the case.
When asked about whether the recommendations of the committee will be binding on the CDA, Gilani conceded that he did not think that the recommendations it will be binding upon the CDA, which is an independent statutory body, but the recommendations has long-term significance in its interpretation of Section 49-C, whereby encroachers have a right to a hearing. Moreover, it also recommends the creation of an SOP for anti-encroachment action.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 22nd, 2020.
In what could be a major step in redressing grievances against the top civic agency of the federal capital demolishing encroachment without issuing due notices, an inquiry committee set up by the district administration has recommended that a kiosk-holder should be compensated for the loss of his equipment.
In December, the Enforcement Directorate of the Capital Development Authority (CDA), on the directives of the interior ministry, launched action against encroachments near the Quaid-i-Azam University (QAU) in the federal capital.
Inquiry documents, available with The Express Tribune, showed that the CDA deputed its officers to reconnoitre the area and identify any illegal structures. After a survey, three illegal structures were identified.
Thereafter, the CDA demolished those structures and destroyed equipment and goods contained within. The owners of one of the illegal structures — 20-year-old Maqsoom filed a complaint with the district magistrate that he had received no advance notice of the demolition, hence he was unable to evacuate his expensive machinery.
Based on the complaint, the district magistrate set up an inquiry committee comprising the Rural Assistant Commissioner Abdullah Mahmood. The magistrate also appointed High Court Advocate Umer Gilani was appointed as an amicus curiae in the case.
Maqsoom’s counsel, Imaan Mazari, contended that her client ran a photocopy business outside QAU in a kiosk. His kiosk, along with two other structures were demolished by the CDA on December 15 without salvaging its contents. His equipment, including two photocopy machines, computers, were also destroyed in the operation.
Mazari argued that her client never received a direct notice naming his establishment.
The CDA, however, contended that he was an encroacher who neither had a valid licence nor any other rights. Moreover, they argued that a public notice had been issued three days before the operation in the form of a notice published in newspapers and pasted the notice on the illegal structures.
Mazari, however, argued that even though Maqsoom was running an unlicenced stall, he still had certain inalienable rights under Section 49-C of the CDA Ordinance 1961.
“Written notice must be given to the “owner, occupier, user or person in control” of any “building, structure, work or land” which the CDA wishes to remove ore demolish in its anti-encroachment operation,” read the inquiry report, adding that the right to receive notice is not limited to lawful owners but to any occupiers of that property at that time and must be served individually.
The inquiry further found that no personal notice was issued either in his name nor in the name of his enterprise. Moreover, a notice was not pasted on his locked shop warning him of demolition to save his belongings.
The inquiry report subsequently recommended that departmental proceedings be initiated against the concerned CDA officials who failed to serve a notice to the complainant. It further recommended that the CDA develop and follow reasonable standard operating procedures (SOPs) for how anti-encroachment operations are to be carried out.
On the matter of compensation, the committee recommended the competent authority to decide it after reviewing the case.
When asked about whether the recommendations of the committee will be binding on the CDA, Gilani conceded that he did not think that the recommendations it will be binding upon the CDA, which is an independent statutory body, but the recommendations has long-term significance in its interpretation of Section 49-C, whereby encroachers have a right to a hearing. Moreover, it also recommends the creation of an SOP for anti-encroachment action.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 22nd, 2020.