SC flays CDA over inaction on katchi abadis
The Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday summoned the Chairman of the Capital Development Authority (CDA), the Member Planning CDA, and the Secretary of the Law and Justice Commission in a case concerning informal settlements (katchi abadis) in Islamabad.
The hearing was conducted by five-member Constitutional Bench headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan. During the course of proceedings, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar questioned the CDA's policy regarding katchi abadis, noting that a dedicated Katchi Abadi Act already exists in Sindh.
CDA's legal counsel, Munir Paracha, argued that it is the federal government's responsibility to legislate on the matter. However, Justice Mazhar responded that it was the CDA's duty to propose relevant legislation to the federal government.
Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi expressed concern, noting the presence of informal settlements even near the Diplomatic Enclave. The CDA lawyer acknowledged that some katchi abadis are recognised by the authority.
Justice Aminuddin Khan questioned the legal basis for selectively recognising some settlements while ignoring others. Justice Jamal Mandokhail further asked the CDA counsel to define what qualifies as a katchi abadi. "If it means mud houses, then 90% of Balochistan would qualify," he said.
Justice Rizvi noted that the SC had ordered legislation on the issue back in 2016. Justice Mazhar pointed out that the case has been pending since 2015, yet no significant progress has been made in the past decade.
The CDA's lawyer argued that due to a court-issued stay order, both informal settlements and encroachments in Islamabad have increased. Justice Mazhar responded, "The real issue is that contempt proceedings should have been initiated against CDA."
The lawyer countered that CDA has been participating in every meeting of the committee established under the Law and Justice Commission following the Supreme Court's directive. Justice Mandokhail remarked that those residing in these areas from the beginning may have a claim to ownership, while later arrivals could be considered informal settlers.
Justice Mazhar criticised the CDA's apparent "pick and choose" policy regarding settlements. Justice Rizvi also questioned the original purpose for which the land was allotted, adding that these settlements have not sprung up overnightresidents have been living there for 10 to 15 years.