KARACHI: Investigations into the demolition of a protected heritage building on the premises of Jufelhurst School earlier this month have revealed how one of the key suspects having power of attorney connived with the Sindh Building Control Authority, Sindh Board of Revenue, district administration and police to raze the structure and build a high-rise on its site.

“Criminal intent of Sajjad Bashir (holder of power of attorney on behalf of private owners) and revenue officers of district East Karachi, including officers up to the level of deputy commissioners, had been at play since 2011 to get the bungalow in the Jufelhurst School demolished and construct multi-storey apartments on its site in connivance with known members of builder (mafia),” said Counter-Terrorism Department DIG Amir Farooqi.

Sharing details of the preliminary inquiry report of the CTD into the incident, Mr Farooqi said that a series of ‘illegalities’ had been committed in the buildup to the demolition of the protected structure.

Mr Bashir had been ‘proactive’ in spurring the SBCA to declare the premises ‘dangerous’ and seal it. He was once snubbed by the high court and the school was allowed to function. Then, he resorted to other tactics when he could not get the school ‘denationalised’. After his failure, he resorted to a chain of illegal actions that culminated in the illegal demolition of the property, said the DIG.

The inquiry revealed that the so-called attorney tried to declare the entire school building as ‘dangerous’ and got orders for its demolition from the SBCA in 2011 but his scheme failed when local people resisted the move.

Once again, he managed to get demolition orders in 2012 and tried to pull down the school through the SBCA but failed again. Then he changed his tack in 2015 and got the school’s plot bifurcated with the help of certain officials of Sindh Board of Revenue (SBR), who declared the old bungalow as separate from the school while knowing full well that the entire school, including the bungalow, had been declared a heritage site.

‘Clandestine’ bifurcation of property

The DIG said the property was subdivided into two parts (GRE-356 & GRE-356/1), one comprising the school, the other having the ‘bungalow’ on it, which must be a ‘clandestine activity’.

“How can a nationalised property be subdivided,” he said, asking that how the proceedings of the subdivision could have taken place without informing the education department, which was its custodian.

He also wondered that how the fact of the premises being nationalised was not known to the revenue department officials who after an ‘inquiry’ which included the site visit were ‘satisfied to carry out the subdivision’, which was not even conveyed to any other department concerned.

“The attorney cannot be absolved of his responsibility as he was aware of the nationalised status of the property but still he filed a petition in a court and approached the education department for denationalisation of the school, he got the property divided by misstating the facts and subsequently selling the premises by hiding facts from the authorities or buyers, which was a ‘criminal act’,” said the DIG, adding the revenue officials were also involved in the crime.

The revenue officials’ behaviour was unwarranted as they failed to safeguard the government’s interests and did not inform the education department of such a development.

“The revenue officials did not take into account the fact that the school was nationalised, they did not even bother to safeguard the rights of various stakeholders,” said the officer.

They not only allowed the sale-purchase but also allowed the new buyers to further sell the property within a month’s time without bringing the facts to the notice of the government, he said.

About the role of ‘new buyers’, the DIG said that even if it was assumed that the buyers were unaware of the protected status of the property, it was difficult to presume the demolition could have been carried out without an NoC from the SBCA. “It clearly demonstrated that the criminal intent was behind this act,” he said.

The buyers conspired with the officials of the area police and went ahead with the demolition of the bungalow with the help of armed men and heavy machinery. The police never made an attempt to stop the illegal action even when they were called and it came to a stop only after people’s intervention, said the DIG.

“The owners who bought the bungalow had no intention of running it as a school. They had planned to raze it to the ground and build apartments on its site. They were acting as ‘front-men’ of a highly influential builder of the city,” said the DIG.

“In this act of demolition of the school building in Soldier Bazaar, criminal intent of Sajjad Bashir (seller), present buyers and the revenue department had been proved beyond doubt,” he said.

The officer said that the basic argument was that the school was nationalised in 1970s with all attached properties in its compound. Further, it was declared a heritage site in 2016 and according to the law, no one, even the owner, could alter the status of a heritage property, he said.

Besides, it was highly outrageous to know how revenue department officials gave an NoC for the sale of a heritage property as well as a government school, he said.

Published in Dawn, April 24th, 2017