ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday held as illegal the July 2010 sale agreement between a private buyer of a piece of land, originally designated as a park/green area, from Khalid Farooq, the managing director (MD) of National Police Foundation Housing Scheme (NPFHS).

Mr Farooq was allotted a plot in the foundation at E-11 Islamabad and he allegedly misused his position as the MD of the foundation to allot to himself a second plot by illegally converting the designated part/green area and then sold it to a private purchaser, Mohammad Zahir Shah, for Rs16 million, regretted Justice Qazi Faez Isa, senior puisine judge of the Supreme Court.

Justice Isa was heading a two-judge Supreme Court bench also consisting of Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi that had taken up an appeal against July 5, 2017, Islamabad High Court (IHC) rejection of a plea by Dr Mohammad Aslam Khaki on the ground that since the foundation was a private trust, a writ cannot be issued against it.

The Supreme Court in its judgement explained that the second plot was not needed by Mr Farooq to construct a house for himself rather for personal aggrandisement as he soon sold it. Many in power like him illegally procure land. They deprive others of their entitlement including the less privileged and those without any shelter, the judgment regretted.

Judgement says foundation should refund amount tobuyer within 30 days

Whenever a second plot is allotted to the same person it deprives another and when this is done at subsidised or below market rates private interest subverts the interest of the state. Land is a valuable asset of the state, therefore, when land is given away for free or at subsidised rates to the powerful elite by an impoverished state it harms the state because selling it at market rate would have alleviated the debt burden.

While declaring the sale agreement between Mr Farooq and Mr Shah as void since the sale and purchase of the designated park/green area was unlawful, the Supreme Court held that Mr Farooq was not entitled to retain the amounts received by him and Mr Shah would be entitled to its refund/compensation.

The order held NPFHS too was not entitled to retain any amount paid to it for the second plot, which was illegally converted and allotted. And since Mr Farooq had sold the second plot to Mr Shah the foundation should refund the amount received in respect thereof to Mr Shah and the balance amount/compensation was to be paid by Mr Farooq to Mr Shah within 30 days of the announcement of this judgment, failing which Mr Shah will be within his rights to file a suit for recovery, compensation and/or damages.

The judgement regretted that both Mr Farooq and the foundation concealed from Mr Shah the fact that the plot had been designated as a park/green area and that it could not be converted into a residential plot, and sold. If requisite disclosure, which a seller is required to make, had been made then it is most unlikely that Mr Shah would have entered into the sale agreement by paying the then market rate for the plot.

During the hearing, the petitioner had also filed an application alleging that certain persons, who were not entitled to plots in the foundation’s schemes, were allotted lands.

While there may be justification to assist serving and retired government servants to have a residence of their own and for this purpose to allot them a plot of land at subsidised or below market rates, there can be none if the same is misused for monetary gain, the judgement added.

“The poor of this nation eke out a living with great difficulty and are lucky if they manage a roof over their heads. The State of Pakistan is heavily indebted and impecunious. In blatant disregard of the people and the country the elite capture land. Auto-genously exceptional and self-entitlement is hollowing out the State and creating an unsustainable environment,” Justice Isa noted.

The court appreciated the petitioner for coming forward to protect and preserve a park/green area.

“We are also constrained to express our displeasure toward the representatives of the foundation and its counsel who regretfully took an adversarial and acrimonious position towards the petitioner and also levelled unnecessary allegations against him, which surprised us since the petitioner was acting in the best interest of the foundation and his prayer in the petition before IHC did not seek anything for himself and he had acted in the public interest,” the judgement said.

Published in Dawn, June 20th, 2023