ISLAMABAD – The government faced yet another embarrassment on Tuesday, when the Supreme Court directed the Capital Development Authority (CDA) chairman to retrieve the possession of 80 kanals of prime land grabbed by the PPP leader of the house in the Senate and head of the parliamentary committee for appointment of superior courts’ judges, Syed Nayyar Hussain Bukhari and his relatives at Bani Gala within three days.
A three-member SC bench comprising Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Justice Ghulam Rabbani and Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday was hearing a suo motu case initiated on a letter by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf chief Imran Khan to the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP) against illegal occupation and grabbing of land at Bani Gala by Bukhari and his relatives.
During the hearing, Bukhari, who appeared on court notice, contended that he had not occupied any state land. He said some people were defaming him on political basis. He said he had not grabbed any land in Bani Gala, however his family legally owned some land there. The 80 kanals of land that Imran Khan had mentioned was not in my possession, adding that “if it is found to be in my possession, the CDA can take it anytime”. He said Imran’s own house in Bani Gala was in a prohibited area. Justice Ramday said, “If Imran Khan’s house was in a prohibited area then why don’t you take action against him… you are in government.”
The court noted that Bukhari himself could not reject the charge of illegal occupation instead it could be rejected by the CDA chairman. The court informed him that the CDA chairman himself had admitted during the chamber hearing that the state land was occupied by him and his relatives. Bukhari then told the court that Khan himself had occupied CDA’s land illegally. He said Khan was occupying over 700 kanals of state land.
Justice Ramday said, “You are an elected member of parliament, thus it is your duty to stop illegal construction on CDA’s land.” Appearing on notice, CDA Chairman Imtiaz Inayat Elahi also rejected some contents of Khan’s letter. The chief justice asked the CDA chairman to tell why he had not retrieved the land from the illegal occupants. Elahi submitted that there were some technical problems, as the land was acquired and purchased by the CDA in mid 60s, but locals did not vacate it until now.
The chief justice expressed dismay and said, “This is a simple issue but you (CDA Chairman Elahi) are creating complexities. Why you are creating favorable situation for the few influential?”Justice Ramday said it was sheer negligence on Elahi’s part.
