PHC stays Cadet College construction in Mohmand

PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Thursday stayed construction of the Cadet College in Mohmand tribal district till next order of the court.

A division bench comprising Justice Qalandar Ali Khan and Justice Abdul Shakoor issued the stay order in a writ petition filed by the owner of the land, claiming that the respondents had started work on his hundreds kanal of land without paying them any compensation.

The bench also attached the salary of additional secretary Fata Secretariat till he appeared in court.

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government through chief secretary, additional secretary Fata, director general Frontier Works Organisation, Commandant Mohmand Rifles, Corps Commander 11 Corps Peshawar, deputy commissioner and assistant commissioner Upper Mohmand were made parties to the petition.

The petition was filed by Muhammad Idrees Khan, a resident of tribal district Mohmand. He claimed that the respondents had started construction of the cadet college on about 680 Kanal of his land without obtaining his consent and providing him compensation.

During the hearing, Sanaullah and Taimur Khan, counsels for the landowner, submitted that the respondents including director general FWO, Commandant Mohmand Rifles and Corps Commander 11 Corps Peshawar had also demolished construction in the shape of markets and houses from the petitioner’s land and cut trees from his land without his consent.

First, the lawyers argued that the respondents occupied the petitioner land and second he was not paid any compensation of his land, demolition of construction and cutting of trees.

They informed the bench that the petitioner had submitted several applications to the officers and authorities concerned for making arrangement for compensation payment but to no avail.

It was submitted in the grounds to the petition that respondents are required under the law to pay compensation at the market rate to the petitioner in respect of the landed property acquired by them.

The lawyers argued that the act of the respondents of non-compensation of the properties of the petitioner, which is occupied by them, is not only illegal but also against the vested right of the petitioner.