State property: Sindh agrees to transfer land to ISI, Pakistan Air Force

Purpose of SC’s restraining order was to protect state land from individuals, clarifies bench.

ISLAMABAD:


The Sindh government has told the Supreme Court that if the court reviews its restraining order regarding the allotment of state land, then it has no objection to the transfer of land to the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the Pakistan Air Force for residential purposes in Karachi.


MM Peerzada, the counsel for the Sindh Revenue Department appearing before a five-member larger bench, said the provincial government has no objection to the transfer of 10 acres of land to the ISI and 350 acres to the PAF in Karachi.

On Wednesday, the bench, headed by Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk, took up the review petition, filed by the ISI director general, seeking the transfer of land from the Sindh government. Similarly, the PAF has also approached the court.

In the Karachi target killing case, the court on November 28, 2012 had restrained Sindh’s Revenue Department from mutation, transfer and conversion of any state land and/or keeping any transaction or entry in the record of rights.



Later, the ISI DG had moved an application in the apex court, seeking direction to the Revenue Department to issue the allotment order in respect of the land approved for the ISI.


A year later on November 28, the court passed a clarification order over this ISI plea, saying that the restraint shall be applicable only to the extent of state land only. Revenue authorities shall be free to enter transaction and mutation for state property, which is required for the purpose of state utilisation.

The Revenue Department, however, expressed its inability to issue a challan for making the payment of the land’s cost to the ISI. Now, the premier intelligence agency has again approached the Supreme Court seeking a review of its November 2013 order.

During Wednesday’s hearing, ISI’s lawyer Raja Muhammad Irshad contended that the state land should be utilised for the state itself but the provincial government was not allotting it.

Justice Asif Khosa, a member of the bench, observed that the SC had given the judgment in 2012 to save state property from individuals, but if the state wants to utilise that property itself, then there is no issue.

Meanwhile, the bench also took notice of a discrepancy regarding the 2013 order as there were two certified copies of the same order placed before the court, but their contents were different.

In one copy, the order mentions, “for state property […] revenue authorities shall be free to enter transaction/mutation”, while in the second, it uses ‘private property’ in the same sentence.

Justice Khosa said it seems that someone disliked the court’s order and has tampered with it.

The bench said the matter will be inquired and complete record of the case be submitted. The hearing was adjourned for the second week of July.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 26th, 2014.
Load Next Story