Starting anew: GDA chalks out encroachment drive

DG authorised under 1977 act to remove illegal structures


Our Correspondent September 22, 2015
DG authorised under 1977 act to remove illegal structures. PHOTO: MUHAMMAD SADAQAT/EXPRESS

ABBOTABAD: The government of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa has empowered Galiyat Development Authority to clear the valley of encroachers, land grabbers and those who are harming the ecology of the area. The authority is now planning an extensive encroachment drive.

According to a GDA press release, the government delegated powers to the authority’s DG under the Removal of Encroachment Act 1977. The Local Government and Rural Development department issued a notification wherein DG Muhammad Azam Khan has been authorised to remove all kinds of encroachment and ensure the sanctity of Galiyat’s natural environment remains intact. Khan will be able to exercise these powers within the territorial limits of the authority.

It said in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Section 10 of the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Public Property (Removal of Encroachment Act, 1977 [Act No VOF 1977]), the officer is empowered to take measures for removal of encroachment from public property. Section 3 of the act states if the officer is satisfied that a person is an unauthorised occupant, he may by order direct the person to vacate the property and remove the structure, if any raised by him on the public property, within a time period prescribed in the order but provided that it shall not be less than 3 days.

The GDA functions under the GDA Act 1996 which has no provision of this kind.

However, with the delegation of powers to Khan, now action will be taken against encroachers and other violators efficiently.

In November 2014, the Abbottabad district administration had cleared about six to eight feet of occupied land in Nathiagali and surrounding areas.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 22nd, 2015. 

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