During the hearing of the Bahria Town and Revenue Employees Society case, Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa expressed his anger and questioned why DHA land is being sold in the name of martyrs. He criticized the lack of audit of DHA and the absence of laws governing them, stating that DHA seems to be above the law. The Supreme Court has adjourned the hearing of the case until after Eid and issued the order for today’s hearing. During the hearing, the Chief Justice expressed his anger and said that Pervez Musharraf, Pervezalahi, and Malik Riaz are the main characters in this case. He also remarked that these people are very powerful, having bought everything, and there is no news against them even in the media.
The Chief Justice questioned why the deal between Bahria Town and DHA was kept secret and asked for a newspaper report about it. He expressed his anger at the fact that the deal seemed to only serve commercial interests. He also criticized the fact that the deal was made without the involvement of the Chief Minister and suggested that the whole deal was illegal. The lawyer for Bahria Town argued that the society came into existence in 1989 and was merged into Bahria Town in 2005. The land in question was transferred to DHA, and retired Colonel Abdullah Siddique was appointed as the administrator of the revenue society.
According to the lawyer, the majority of members in the general body meeting of the revenue society voted to merge it with Bahria town. The Chief Justice pointed out that there is a Cooperative Housing Society Act that applies to everyone. He criticized the fact that the Punjab government exempted Bahria Town from this law, essentially allowing them to operate outside the law.
The Chief Justice also questioned why the committee formed by the Chief Minister on the matter included servants of Bahria Town. He criticized the fact that the servant of the person with whom they were going to make a contract was sitting on both sides of the committee. He also questioned whether the revenue cooperative society was advertised before being closed and whether bids were called for builders to come forward for the society. The Chief Justice questioned the legality of the agricultural land being used for residential purposes. He criticized the fact that the society was built on valuable agricultural land and that it was being used for commercial purposes. He also criticized the fact that the society was illegal and questioned where the notification of permission for the society was.
