Bahria Town urges SC to reassess amount for allotted land

ISLAMABAD: The Bahria Town requested the Supreme Court on Wednesday to reassess the amount for 11,747 acres of land allotted to the Bahria Town management by the Malir Development Authority against the required 16,896 acres for its Super Highway Project in Malir. 

A three-member bench of the apex court — headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Qazi Faez — took up Bahria Town, Karachi, Rawalpindi as well as New Murree cases heard by the implementation bench. Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan and Justice Athar Minallah were the two other bench members.

The court issued notices to the persons who have deposited so far the amount in view of Rs460 billion offer made by the Bahria Town to the court as settlement for its 16,896-acre Super Highway Project.

The court appointed Farooq H Naek as amicus curiae (friend of court) for assistance on the issue of nomination of chairman of the commission by the chief justice for utilization of the amount being deposited by the Bahria Town.

The court further noted down in its order that the Bahria Town management had not deposited the whole amount with its registrar and that the news reports had claimed that the amount was also paid from some other sources.

The court further noted down in its order that according to the counsel for Bahria Town if an agreement had been singed with any foreign entity, then the court would be apprised on the next date of hearing after seeking instructions from the client.

The court also directed the Sindh government, Malir Development Authority and Sindh Building Control Authority to submit details of approval of the site plans to the Bahria Town. The hearing was adjourned until November 8.

The court also adjourned hearing in matters related to the Bahria Town Rawalpindi-Islamabad and Murree projects for a month.

Earlier, during the course of hearing, Bahria Town counsel Salman Aslam Butt informed the court that the MDA had allotted only 11,747 acres against the required 16,896 acres for the project and conveyed them that the rest of the land was not available.

He submitted that since the required piece of land was not provided by the MDA, hence they stopped paying the instalments.

“It’s a commercial deal — you give me the land and we will give you the money”, Salman Butt informed the court.

Justice Athar Minallah, however, observed that the court judgment had got finality and hence they will have to implement the court order in letter and spirit.

The counsel replied that one-sided implementation was not possible saying when they didn’t get the required land, then how the court decision could be implemented.

Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa observed that the Bahria Town had not furnished the project site plan with the court saying, “We can’t go like this”.

He asked the counsel as to what jurisdiction he wanted to invoke in his application filed recently.

The counsel replied that Article 184(3) of the Constitution could be applied in the matter in hand.

The chief justice told the counsel that the court could either opt for review, contempt or execution of its order.

“Every door is separate. Hence you have doors of review, contempt or execution of the court’s order,” the CJP told the counsel.

Salman But, however, reiterated as to how the payment could be made when they had not got the required land.

“The law tells me that I should not make the payment,” Salman Butt said, adding legally, they were allotted 16,896 acres but got only 11,747 acres.

He submitted that in the instant matter, the court had constituted an implementation bench.

The CJP asked the counsel if there had been any concept of constitution of an implementation bench.

The counsel replied in the negative, while Farooq H Naek, the counsel for Malir Development Authority, told the court that there was no any citation in this regard.

The chief justice asked the Additional Attorney General Aamir Rehman if the bench could order constitution of another bench.

Replying, Aamir Rehman said the concept of constitution of implementation bench had been taken from the Indian court practice but in Pakistan, implementation benches had been made several times.

Salman Aslam Butt submitted that the amount settled by the implementation bench was unconstitutional.

“But your review is not before the court as well”, the CJP told the Bahria Town counsel adding that the implementation bench had passed the order with the consent of Bahria Town.

“Whether the land was available or not, we don’t know”, the CJP remarked.

Justice Athar Minallah remarked that the assessment made for the amount by the implementation bench was final and hence the implementation bench’s decision should not be disrespected.

Justice Minallah asked the counsel how much amount had been paid by the Bahria Town management.

“We have deposited Rs65 billion so far”, replied the counsel.

“How many instalments have you paid so far and when the last instalment was deposited?” asked the chief justice. He said as per judgment of the implementation bench, if two instalments were not paid, it would be a default on the third one.

“You did not respect the court’s decision”, Justice Minallah told the counsel.

“My reservations should also be respected”, Salman Aslam Butt replied.

Justice Minallah observed that as per the court decision if the verdict was not implemented, then the NAB would file a reference.

The verdict could not be changed as well”, Justice Athar Minallah remarked.

Salman Aslam Butt contended that the court could provide justice under Article 187 of the Constitution. At this, Justice Minallah told the counsel that Article 187 could only be invoked in pending matters whereas the instant issue was not a pending matter.

Advocate General Sindh told the court that they did not receive the notice on the CMA recently filed by the Bahria Town management.

He further told the court that the implementation bench had already rejected the plea of Bahria Town for payment of the amount.

The chief Justice asked the Bahria Town counsel whether the project had been completed and people had started living there.

The counsel replied that 50 percent of the project had been completed.

Justice Minallah observed that the real stakeholders in this case were the people of Sindh and asked the counsel about the project site plan.

The CJP asked how the project was initiated when there was no land and no layout plan.

“Whether 50 percent project was completed without any approval?” the CJP questioned.

If there was no layout plan, then the whole project was illegal”, remarked Justice Minallah.

Salman Aslam Butt submitted that he will produce before the court details about the layout plan.

The chief Justice told the counsel that the court staff had also googled the NOC and asked the counsel to inform the court in this regard if verification from his client.

“This paper is in favor of your client”, the CJP told the counsel.

Meanwhile, Farooq H Naek told the court that the MDA acquired the land from Sindh government on the direction of the apex court adding that the Sindh government was paid Rs1 billion

To a question, Naek replied that the MDA had acquired the land from Sindh government on lease; however, the lease tenure was not completed.

Justice Minallah asked as to how a land acquired on lease could be given to another party.

Advocate general Sindh told the court that the provincial government did not take the amount for lease. He contended that since the land was the Sindh government property, the amount being collected from Bahria Town should also be given to the provincial government.

He further submitted that as per the court decision, the amount would be utilized for development projects in the province through the Commission.

He further submitted that as per the court verdict, the chairman of the commission would be nominated by the chief justice of Pakistan.

In its plea, the management of Bahria Town had requested the apex court to take notice of discrimination being meted out to it in connection with land sold to it on higher rates than the land sold to other societies.

“With a staggering difference of over Rs458 billion in the price vis-à-vis similarly placed entity, Bahria Town is being discriminated against and put at a serious disadvantage”, the management of Bahria Town had contended.