ISLAMABAD: Government allottees of the Membership Drive-ll in Islamabad’s F-14 and F-15 sectors approached the Supreme Court on Wednesday, challenging the judgment of an Islamabad High Court (IHC) division bench, which had declared the housing schemes as not in the public interest.
In the petition, filed through Hafiz Ahsaan Ahmad Khokhar Advocate, the petitioners, all government employees, said that the IHC judgment amounted to judicial overreach and “suffers from gross illegality” therefore, it was “liable to be set aside by Supreme Court”.
On February 3, while announcing the reserved judgment on the 2016 petition, the IHC declared that the housing schemes of Sectors F14/ F15/ G12, F12 Islamabad were against the public interest in the present form, and hence were unconstitutional and illegal.
The petition stated that the Senate Committee on Housing and Works had recommended that Sector F-14 be allocated by the Capital Development Authority (CDA) to the Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation (FGEHF) for preparing a housing scheme.
It further said that the CDA and the FGEHF agreed to initiate a housing scheme in Sector F-14. Accordingly, the Housing and Works Secretary initiated a summary on January 6, 2015 regarding the acquisition of land in Sector F-14 and Sector F-15.
According to the petition, the prime minister approved the summary on May 1, 2015, and two notifications under the relevant sections of the Land Acquisition Act were issued by the Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT) commissioner on May 20, 2015 and December 4, 2015.
The petition pointed out that the issue of acquisition of land in sectors F-14 and F-15 were also taken to the Supreme Court, which decided the matter on many points, including the point of acquisition for a housing scheme constituting a valid public purpose.
The petitioners said that the authorities, including the high courts, were constitutionally and legally bound to adhere to and not to deviate from the law points decided by the apex court. They added that while deciding the case, the IHC bench violated the concept of the law regarding the finality of proceedings.
Even the IHC bench decided those points, which were neither taken up in the writ petition nor prayed, the petitioners said, adding that the IHC judgment amounted to judicial overreach and suffered from gross illegality and was liable to be set aside by the Supreme Court.
The petitioners further said that the high court could not intervene in the policy matters of government when it was not specifically challenged from any side in court on the ground of mala fide or any violation of fundamental rights were pointed out.
