HYDERABAD: Occupation of villagers’ land denied by Petaro college
HYDERABAD, Nov 16: The Cadet College Petaro authorities have criticised MNA Ghani Talpur and the Jamshoro district nazim for their role in ongoing controversy over Safar Khaskheli Goth.
They said that the land in question was the exclusive property of the college.
In a statement issued here on Thursday, a spokesman for the college said that the CCP was in legal possession of 729-03 acres of land in Deh Petaro.
He said that the college land had been demarcated with barbed wire and thick hedges which were being replaced by boundary wall from time to time whenever funds were available.
He said that in 1958, an area of 295 acres was reserved for the Cadet College Petaro, while an area of 429-09 acres was granted by the Sindh government on May 15, 2006, at the rate of Rs10,000 per acre which had been fully paid. He said that the record of rights had also been mutated in favour of the CCP.
He said that within the area of 729-03 acres, the college had raised seven projects at a cost of tens of millions of rupees.
He said that the college had not occupied any land owned by any person and there was no village or any habitation in the area.
He said that people of the adjoining villages had filed many cases against the college but most of them had been disposed of while some were pending in courts.
Referring to the recent incident, he said that on November 9, the villagers armed with hatchets and guns, dismantled the barbed wires and entered the college area and started firing.
He said that the principal of the college, Commodore M. Abid Saleem, adjutant lieutenant commander Qamar Zia, and some employees of the college were injured.
He rejected the allegations levelled against the principal by the MNA.
When contacted on telephone about the alleged violation of the status quo ordered by the court, the spokesman said that the firing incident had taken place on November 9, whereas the status quo by the court was ordered on November 10.
Therefore, he said, the question of violating the stay order simply did not arise.