ISLAMABAD, Sept 17: The Supreme Court on Tuesday suggested to the Punjab government to settle its dispute with the person whose precious land was “grabbed” by it for building the National Institute of Public Administration, or the apex court would appoint a retired judge to make independent assessment of the value of the land.

A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmad, adjourned hearing of contempt of court petition by Mian Attaullah for two weeks.

The court made it clear that if the Punjab government failed to compensate the petitioner, it might appoint a retired judge to make independent assessment of the land and the court would implement it under its direction.

The Advocate General Punjab, Maqbool Ellahi Malik, was conveyed by the court that it was “displeased” with the attitude of the Punjab government, and the same should be conveyed to the governor Punjab.

The CJ observed that the valuable piece of land, spanning over 14 kanals on the Mall, Lahore, was grabbed by the government and two decades have passed since. Still, the person was running from pillar to post for getting his rights.

The CJ observed that the government, which entered into an agreement with the petitioner in 1981, took fourteen long years to decide what it would pay to the person whose land it had grabbed.

The petitioner, Mian Attaullah, had informed the court that he owned Edulphy Hotel on 78 Mall. In 1981, the Punjab government headed by Governor Gillani asked him to enter into an agreement as his land was required for NIPA.

He was promised that Punjab government would give him “comparable” land and offered him 29 plots in Johar Town, measuring 16 kanals. The petitioner stated that the possession of the land was given in 2001.

The petitioner contended that it was insufficient as the value of his land was much more. He said that his land on the Mall, was adjacent to Services Hotel, which was assessed to be valued at Rs260 million.

The petitioner has impleaded the Chief Secretary Punjab, Hafeez Randhawa, Director General LDA and some other officials of the Punjab Government as respondents.

The Chief Secretary Punjab in his report said that sufficient compensation had been given to the petitioner, and he would not recommend to the governor for more.

The AG Punjab stated that the petitioner was not honouring the contract. The court asked the AG to forget about the agreement which was signed under “duress”. The case will now be taken up after two weeks.