ISLAMABAD, May 17: The government has said that there is no controversy among various department regarding status of Bhopal House.

Clarifying a news-item titled “conflicting claims by departments appearing in Dawn on Thursday, an official spokesman in a statement stated that “the facts are that Bhopal House was an evacuee property by operation of law since March 1, 1947, and as such it vested in the government of Pakistan from the said date. As a gesture of goodwill to an ex-Muslim ruler of an important former Indian state, the Government of Pakistan decided to pay a sum of Rs450,000 as a sort of compensation to the persons claiming to be the then owners in 1958.

“It is also a fact that there was no objection to the title of the Government of Pakistan from the claimant or anyone else on her behalf until 1992. It was only in 1992 that Mr. Shaharyar Khan started manoeuvring. It is not without coincidence that illegal possession was also obtained in 1993 during the period he was posted as foreign secretary from 1992-94 through political connections.

“No controversy is disclosed from two press releases on the subject issued by government departments for the reason that the property had been treated as an evacuee property since 1947. After 1958, the status of property as evacuee property stood confirmed and thereafter it could not be treated as ownership by purchase, because section 3A of Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1958, provide that “no person or property treated as evacuee property before the commencement of Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1958 shall be declared as non-evacuee property on or after such commencement”.

The allegation regarding disturbing the soyem proceedings of the Princess Abida Sultana is also totally unfounded as nobody was occupying the vacated premises except a chowkidar, when its possession was obtained on behalf of the federal government. The late Princess was living in Bhopal House, Malir, whereas Mr. Shaharyar Khan is living in DHA. Hence no inconvenience was caused to anybody.

“It may be reiterated that the government and all its departments hold retired senior civil servants in highest esteem but expect them to reciprocate in a similar manner and avoid departmental/governmental matters and legal issues to be aired publicly for personal gains.

“Regrettably, Mr. Shaharyar is trying to undermine a system which he says he so zealously worked for during service by casting aspersions on senior serving government functionaries knowing fully well that they cannot reciprocate due to government rules. Mr. Shaharyar should himself respect law of the land and have faith in courts rather than politicizing and publicizing a non-issue for selfish and other ulterior motives through the press.”