Housing scheme:10 years on, victims of land scam await justice

Documents say that Rizwan Sadiq and his nephew Asad Mumtaz were involved in a land scam leaving thousands homeless.


Arif Rana December 16, 2013
File photo of a family. PHOTO: MYRA IQBAL/EXPRESS

ISLAMABAD:


Thousands of allottees of the Cabinet Division Employees Cooperative Housing Society (CDECHS) are left in the lurch as they are unable to get possession of their plots even after a decade due to the fraudulent dealing involving a couple of politically connected individuals.


An official document – a copy of which is available with the Express Investigation Cell (EIC) – suggests that Rizwan Sadiq, president of the Islamabad chapter of Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid’s (PML-Q), and his nephew, Asad Mumtaz sold out hundreds of kanals of land to the society in 2003, but did not transfer considerable portion of the land. As a result thousands of allottees could not get plots against their payments even after a decade.



According to the document, Sadiq sold the land to the CDECHS in 2003 and received millions of rupee but did not transfer the land to the society in time. Delay in the transfer of possession will cost the society Rs800 million additional as development charges have gone up considerably during the last 10 years.

Seeing Sadiq’s successful style of making money, his nephew – Asad Mumtaz – also entered into the alleged fraudulent deal with the CDECHS in 2004. He allegedly received Rs 110 million from the CDECHS through checks for supply of 424 kanals of land, but did not transfer the land to the society even after 10 years. He also received Rs33 million from a developer for development which never happened.

The document suggests that Sadiq – party 2 in the land sale/ purchase agreement – sold 2,500 kanals of land to the CDECHS in May 2003, falling in village Pind Parian/ moaza Dura in zone II of Islamabad and balance land adjacent and contiguous to the society’s land in E-16 sector and sub-sector E-17/3 much away from the main IP/ sectoral dividing line.

The CDECHS – party 1 as per agreement – was to purchase land free from all encumbrances and mute with complete possession from party 2 at Rs165,000 per kanal but the major portion of the land is yet to be acquired and transferred to the society.

Role of FIA and NAB

Huge files of the case indicate that the allottees knocked at every door from which they thought justice could be achieved including National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), but in vain.

The investigation agencies made some half-hearted efforts to probe into the issue, but the job was left unfinished for reason better known to them.

Role of the CRCDI

The role of the Circle Registrar Cooperative Department (CRCDI), Islamabad office, is also highly objectionable in the case. The CRCDI neither exercised his powers to stop the CDECHS junta from illegal holding of offices of the society since 2010 nor made any sincere effort to implement the decision of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) for ensuring allotment of plots to the affectees against their payments to the society.

After a dismal response from the investigation agencies and Circle Registrar Islamabad, the affectees moved the Islamabad High Court (IHC) and filed a petition against Sadiq and Mumtaz to get justice.

The court took the notice and the IHC chief justice summoned the DG FIA and the Circle Registrar Cooperative Department, Islamabad, for explaining as to why they did not take notice of the fraud committed by the CDECHS. The court order was inspiring for the victims, but it did not last long as neither FIA nor Islamabad administration implemented the IHC orders.

When contacted, Sadiq conceded that he and his nephew – Asad Mumtaz – sold out their thousands of kanals of land to the CDECHS and out of it 424 kanals sold by Asad Mumtaz was yet to be transferred to the society.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 16th, 2013

COMMENTS

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