KARACHI, Sept 2: The Sindh High Court allowed the Defence Housing Authority on Tuesday to proceed with the development and allotment of over 11,000 acres of land earmarked by it for its Phase IX.

The acquisition of the land in Gadap Town was challenged by residents of two villages who claimed it as their farmland with ancestral rights. The claim was contested by the provincial board of revenue and the DHA.

Advocate Adnan Memon argued on behalf of the residents of Deh Abdar and Deh Khadeji that the petitioners and their forefathers had occupied and tilled the land for decades and they could not be deprived of their property and livelihood. The petitioners had acquired ownership rights and their possession could not be disturbed under the law.

Advocate M. Ahmed Pirzada, special counsel for the board of revenue, argued that there was no mention of the possession, cultivation or ownership of the land in the record of rights maintained by the revenue authorities. The 10 villagers who had approached the court had failed to specify the survey number of their property and the land acquired by the DHA might not be the land claimed by them. The land was given to the DHA under the government’s land grant policy.

DHA counsel Anwar Mansoor Khan maintained that, according to the revenue record, the land belonged to the provincial government, which sold it to the DHA and recovered the allotment price. The petitioners had no cause of action and no right to agitate before the court.

A bench consisting of Justices Munib Ahmed Khan and Rana Mohammad Shamim dismissed the petition as not maintainable and upheld the purchase of the land by the DHA.

The bench also dismissed a petition moved by Mohammad Bin Qasim Housing Society. The petitioner society said its members were the rightful owner of the land reclaimed from the sea. The BoR counsel said under the land grant policy nobody could claim allotment of the reclaimed land as a matter of right. The government was free to utilize it according to its policy.

Comments sought

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali and Justice Zafar Ahmed Khan Sherwani sought comments from the provincial home secretary, the capital city police officer and the station house officer of Sachal on a petition moved by a freed detainee within two weeks.

Claiming to be ‘freelance writer’, petitioner Affan Leghari submitted through Advocate Syed Abdul Waheed that he was first picked up by some personnel of a law-enforcement agency in October 2004. His mother moved a petition for his recovery, production and release but it was only in 2006 after initial denial of his detention by police and his removal to Balochistan that he was finally freed under a court order.However, after a year and a half of his illegal detention, he was being asked by the police to furnish a surety amounting to Rs10 million. He was being accused of complicity with terrorists. His name has been included in ‘the fourth schedule’ maintained by the police under Section 11-E of the Anti-Terrorism Act. He said the police demand was illegal and unconstitutional as no citizen could be subjected to submit surety without being accused of an offence.

Notices issued

The bench also issued notices in a petition moved by Muhammad Rafi Siddique, reporter of the daily Jasarat, for furnishing a surety amounting to Rs10 million. The petitioner submitted through Advocate Syed Abdul Waheed that he stood surety for Dr Akmal Waheed, who remained behind bars as a terrorism suspect along with his brother, Dr Arshad Waheed, for over a year and was finally freed under a high court order.

He was summoned to the Gulshan-i-Iqbal police station when the police found that Dr Akmal Waheed was not available at his residence. The petitioner was threatened and detained at midnight till his brother executed a personal bond to produce him before the police whenever required. The petitioner said the police wanted him to furnish surety for Rs10 million or property worth that amount to ensure the production of Dr Akmal Waheed under a new policy decision taken by the government.

Issuing notices to the home secretary, the CCPO and the police superintendent and SHO of Gulshan-i-Iqbal for Sept 9, the bench asked the police not to harass the petitioner and act in accordance with the law.