ISLAMABAD Jan 22: The Military Estate Office, Rawalpindi, has failed to implement the orders of Lahore High Court and Supreme Court directing payment of compensation to two brothers for a piece of land occupied by the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI).
The agency has been occupying the land since 1986 and building a multi-storey plaza there without paying any rent or entering into a deal with the legal owners, according to the documents available with Dawn.
Masood Abbasi and Zahoor Abbasi had prayed to the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench in 1999 that their three kanal and six marla land adjacent to Rawalpindi Cricket Stadium had been in the illegal possession of the intelligence agency since 1986.
The high court in its April 22, 2002 judgment declared that the occupation of the land was repugnant to the Land Acquisition Act and directed the agency to compensate the legal owners at the prevalent market rate. The court also gave an option to the respondents to settle the dispute through private negotiations.
The Military Estate Office challenged the Lahore High Court decision and moved the Supreme Court for relief. However, a three-member bench of the apex court in its judgment on February 16, 2004 upheld the high court decision and directed the petitioners (ISI) to settle the case through dialogue and pay the cost of the land to the legal owners.
However, much to the disappointment of the petitioners, neither the agency nor the Military Estate Office implemented the apex court orders.
Finding no relief, the petitioners, Maqsood Abbasi and Zahoor Abbasi, have submitted an appeal to the President House seeking the intervention of President Musharraf in implementation of the apex court orders by the agency.
The two brothers said they were tired and exhausted and financially too poor to run from pillar to post for relief. They further said that paying no heed to the orders of the apex court the agency was constructing a multi-storey building at the place for commercial use.
The two brothers said that they would not get relief unless the Supreme Court took a suo motu action against the agency for contempt of court.