ETPB barred from vacating Lal Haveli

LHC's Rawalpindi Bench issues restraining order, seeks detailed reply

RAWALPINDI:

The controversy surrounding the eviction and control of the historic Lal Haveli, which has stood for over one-and-a-half centuries, has once again captured public attention as the Lahore High Court’s (LHC) Rawalpindi bench barred the Punjab Evacuee Trust Property Board (ETPB) to take unilateral action sans due deliberation.

Justice Jawad Hassan of the LHC’s Rawalpindi bench has taken action by issuing a restraining order against the chairman of ETPB, preventing any immediate action regarding the building that stands as a testimony of the true love of a Hindu mogul for his Muslim wife. The court has also issued a notice and ordered a comprehensive response. The legal move was prompted by a petition filed by Sheikh Siddique, the brother of former Interior Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed. Representing Sheikh Siddique, Advocate Sardar Abdul Razaq Khan argued that the iconic Lal Haveli was constructed by a Hindu tycoon more than 150 years ago. It was subsequently gifted to Budhan Bai by the tycoon.

Following Budhan Bai’s demise, the mansion exchanged hands and, in 1987, Sheikh Siddique legally acquired it through a registered deed. The property’s ownership was also officially documented in court records. Lal Haveli currently serves as the political headquarters for Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, the former interior minister. The government’s intent to reclaim the property from Sheikh Rashid and his brother, according to Sheikh Siddique, is driven by an unlawful desire for political vengeance. Sheikh Siddique contends that the Chairman of ETPB lacks the legal and constitutional authority to execute such actions.

A legal challenge was already filed against the chairman’s alleged misuse of power in the high court, and its verdict is still pending. Until the high court renders a decision on this matter, Sheikh Siddique urged that the chairman refrain from taking any action against Lal Haveli. Justice Jawad Hassan, the presiding judge, questioned the government’s lawyers about the urgency of making a decision.