ISLAMABAD: Justice Athar Minallah of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday suspended a housing scheme meant for lawyers on Park Road.

Earlier last month, Justice Minallah declared a housing venture of the Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation (FGEHF) in sectors F-14 and F-15 illegal, where in addition to senior bureaucracy, employees of constitutional bodies, and serving and retired judges were the beneficiaries.

This time, the housing venture, which came under judicial scrutiny, was launched by the Supreme Court Bar Association Housing Scheme (SCBAHS).

In addition to about 3,000 lawyers, over two dozen judges of the Supreme Court and provincial high courts and some retired judges were beneficiaries from this housing society.

Petitioner claims SCBA Housing Scheme acquired land contrary to the mandatory provision of the Land Acquisition Act 1984

Justice Minallah issued the stay order after the petitioner M/s Government Officers Cooperative Farming Society, through its counsel advocate Saeed Khurshid Ahmed, pleaded that the SCBAHS acquired land contrary to the mandatory provision of the Land Acquisition Act 1984 and due procedure of law.

Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) managed to get a ‘directive’ from former prime minister Raja Pervez Ashraf during his last days in power to set up a cooperative housing society. In 2013, the Supreme Court Bar Association petitioned before the apex court for execution of the prime minister’s order.

“That the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) of Islamabad notified acquisition of land under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on April 29, 2015 upon the requisition of Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation (FGEHF) for establishment of a housing scheme for the members of the SCBA and the said notification of acquisition was published in the extraordinary Gazette of Pakistan dated May 2, 2015,” the petition stated.

The petitioner, amongst hundreds of objectors, filed objections against the said notification under section 4 before the LAC but those objections against the acquisition remained in abeyance despite reminder, it further said.

According to the petition, the society owns more than 1,000 kanals falling in the land acquired through impugned notification dated October 28, 2016.

It argued that the petitioner raised hue and cry against the illegal actions of the land acquisition collector and assailed the acquisition proceedings through objection petitions, but the collector remained indifferent therefore, the petitioner became party into the proceeding before the Supreme Court.

However, its application was disposed of for being infructuous, it said, adding that the review petition in this matter was also dismissed by the apex court on technical grounds without formal adjudication of the grievance raised by the petitioner.

The petitioner is remediless as of today; therefore, it has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this IHC under Article 199 of the Constitution for the protection of fundamental rights.

The petition claimed that the issue is very important as it involves the grievance of the petitioner and around 20,000 to 25,000 people living in the land/area acquired through notification of acquisition dated October 28, 2016.

It pointed out that the order of the land acquisition collector was approved by the chief commissioner Islamabad, the same day.

As per the petition, the Capital Development Authority (CDA) Ordinance, 1960, is a special law under which the CDA is the only forum to acquire the land for development of housing society, adding that the proposed acquisition of land is also in violation of the prime minister’s directive which required the ministries of housing, law, the Finance Division and Pak Public Works Department to launch a housing scheme through Cooperative Housing Society for the members of the Supreme Court Bar Association but unluckily the FGEHF started a financial venture and that too by way of having recourse to illegal acquisition mechanism for establishing a housing scheme for legal fraternity on parity basis.

The petition insisted that the issuance of subject notification under Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is against law because the federal government had declined permission for acquisition of the subject land.

The court adjourned the hearing till a date to be fixed by the registrar office.

Published in Dawn, November 21st, 2017