RAWALPINDI, June 19: Justice Chaudhry Shahid Saeed of the Lahore High Court (LHC) Rawalpindi bench on Tuesday reserved his verdict in petitions challenging the merger of Revenue Employees Cooperative Housing Society (RECHS) Rawalpindi with Bahria Town.  

The merger has allegedly deprived the members of the employees housing society of developed plots.

The petitioners included serving and retired officials of the provincial government.

Under the agreement, the BT took over the society’s 2,880 kanals developed land in 2005 and promised to deliver the possession to 2,000members of RECHS that was initiated in 1988 and land was purchased in revenue estates of Morgah and Jirahi in Rawalpindi.

The Bharia Town, in the name of development accumulated Rs300,000 per kanal from members of the housing society but only delivered possession of plots to 257 members.

Later in 2006, the administration of Bharia Town transferred the land to Defence Housing Authority (DHA) that developed Askari-XIV housing society for serving and retired army men.

It was in March this year that Supreme Court directed the LHC to decide cases against Bahria Town within two month after setting up a special bench.

Challenging the amalgamation of the society with a private company, Riazud Din Ahmed and other petitioners claimed the agreement was signed on behalf of RECHS by its administrator who was appointed in violation of rules.

Raja Mohammad Bashir, the counsel for the petitioners, on Tuesday maintained that Colonel (retired) Abdullah Siddiqi, acting as administrator of the society, signed the controversial deal with chief executive of BT Malik Riaz Hussain in February 2005, when theadministrator had no legal standing after his period of appointment was over.

He argued before the court that the administrator was at the same time an assistant director with National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Rawalpindi and he was illegally appointed as administrator when an elected body was present for the revenue society but the body was not notified by registrar cooperative societies.

The members of the housing society maintained that even the appointment of the administrator was for a short period and he was not authorised to decide future of the society let alone transfer its land through mutation to a private company.

The petitioners in written applications maintained that under the law no agreement could be signed between a welfare society and a private limited company.

They said after the land was further transferred to DHA by the BT the petitioners were deprived of their plots and the money they had paid for their land.

On the other hand, Barrister Gohar Ali Khan representing the BT maintained before the court that the merger was made involving the provincial government.

The agreement was approved by the then chief minister of Punjab, and the then District Coordination Officer was arbitrator in the proceedings he said adding BT had compensated all who were allotted plots except 26.

He said many were given plots at original land, other were offered price of their plots amounting to Rs1.6 million and remaining were offered developed plots in Phase-IX of Bahria Town.