LAYYAH, June 6: District Nazim Malik Ghulam Haider, in alleged connivance with the district officer for revenue, has got transferred 113 canal costly government land in the name of his three sons.

According to the official record, 450 kanal land was adjusted and confirmed in the name of Mian Fakharuddin, a resident of Model Town, in Choubara tehsil’s Chak 489, 497, 370, 404, 337 and 448 TDA and in Layyah tehsil’s Chak 280 and 138 TDA. Fakharuddin was given this land against his right to return under the Thar Development Authority (TDA) Act in 1981.

Later, Fakharuddin’s daughter Surriya Jabeen got 116 kanal land as her share from her father’s property. Heirs to Ms Jabeen, Shehnaz Hassan, Shahida Raza, Shahbano

Asad and Shehryar Syed Ghiasuddin gave the general power of attorney to Syed

Anwar, a resident of Lahore’s Gulberg locality, and asked him to look after their land in Layyah district.

Anwar, in alleged connivance with Haider, forged his power of attorney and filed an application, on behalf of heirs to Ms Jabeen, to the revenue officer for the adjustment of land in their name. Anwar pleaded that Ms Jabeen was not given land therefore her heirs should be given land according to their share.

On the alleged pressure of Haider, District Officer for Revenue Ghulam Akbar Khichi again allotted 113 canal land of Ms Jabeen’s share to her heirs in a prohibited zone near Layyah city. The land, which should have been allotted in Mauza Sumra Thal Kalan, was allotted in the costly prohibited zone of Bairoon Chak, Mandi Town, Layyah.

Later, Anwar transferred this land to the names of the district nazim’s sons Muhammad Bilal, Muhammad Salal and Muhammad Ajlal through mutations number 138, 226, 717, 718, 729 and 748.

Dawn has learnt that heirs to Ms Jabeen were aware of this action, but they did not speak up against it because of the district nazim’s influence.

However, the district nazim denied he pressured any official for the adjustment of the land.

He said that court could be moved if the land was allotted twice against the right to return.

He said if the land was allotted in the prohibited zone, it was the competent authority’s business to decide on it.