ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has allowed an application for making the Capital Development Authority (CDA) a party in a dispute between Defence Housing Authority (DHA), Elysium Holding Pakistan (EHP) and a landowner.
The application was filed by the landowner, Malik Asad Ali Khan.
DHA in collaboration with EHP planned to develop farmhouses in Zone-V. However, the project is yet to be completed.
Kamran Kayani was reportedly a director of the EHP. The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) in 2016 arrested two former officials of the DHA and a chief executive officer of EHP for illegally selling non-saleable certificates of the authority in violation of a contract agreement.
NAB said the management of Elysium Holdings in connivance with officials of DHA had caused a huge loss by not completing the DHA-I Ranches project and by selling its certificates.
Asad Ali Khan offered his 1486 kanals to DHA under a land-sharing scheme according to which the JV was supposed to allot him 60 farmhouses of eight kanals each against the land.
Under the agreement, he transferred his land in the name of DHA and the latter handed him over 50 allotment letters.
However, Mr Khan filed a petition in the IHC in 2014 seeking retrieval of his land since the JV failed to develop the farmhouses.
While his petition was pending before the IHC, Mr Khan recently moved an application for making the CDA a party to the case.
IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah allowed the application and a notice was issued to the CDA for June 21.
Mr Khan contended that the FIA and CDA had submitted a report to the Supreme Court stating: “It was established that DHA-Elysium Ranches project was never introduced with the CDA, neither developed nor executed and it was established that it was a totally a ghost project.”
The DHA submitted that “EHP was responsible for arranging land and develop the project. DHA was not responsible to invest anything in the project.
The DHA said EHP was bound to transfer 30,000 kanals in the name of DHA, however, it provided only 1,982 kanals.
EHP in its reply said since the matter was related to “disputed questions pertaining to contractual liability”, it could not be settled under the constitutional jurisdiction of Article 199 by the IHC.
Published in Dawn, June 20th, 2021*