IHC Asks Why Saidpur Land Claims Are Being Raised After 50 Years
Justice Minhas asks why old land awards are being challenged where compensation was accepted.
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court has sought final arguments on November 10 in petitions involving 127 applicants concerning Capital Development Authority operations in Saidpur Village and compensation claims linked to an earlier Supreme Court decision.
Justice Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas questioned whether a land acquisition award issued approximately five decades ago could now be challenged where affected persons had already accepted compensation under it. He asked why objections had not been raised when the award was issued and compensation received.
The judge directed lawyers to address the legal effect of a Supreme Court judgment referred to during the hearing as having been delivered in 2008.
The proceedings centred on the status of historical acquisition awards, benefits already provided to affected residents and the legal grounds for revisiting earlier settlements. The court also stressed that any action affecting residents’ homes must comply with the law and judicial orders.
Court Questions Reopening of Old Awards
Justice Minhas asked counsel to explain the legal basis for reopening a matter after approximately five decades and to identify relevant Pakistani or Indian judicial precedents supporting their positions.
His questions brought the timing of the challenge and the legal consequences of accepting compensation into focus. They did not constitute a final finding that every petitioner had received their full entitlement.
The discussion also touched on historical ownership records and the identification of persons entitled to benefits. The judge highlighted the difficulties that could arise if the identities of original owners or their predecessors were disputed decades after an acquisition award.
Referring to the 2008 Supreme Court decision, he directed the parties to come prepared to explain its implications at the next hearing.
CDA Cites Allotment and Compensation Records
CDA counsel Shehryar Tariq submitted that records of plots allotted to affected persons were available, along with lists identifying those who had already received benefits.
He maintained that the authority had explained its position to the court, complied with directions and responded to notices concerning Saidpur.
Tariq also questioned the documentary basis on which one applicant had obtained interim relief, referring to a document containing handwritten names and a sports director’s stamp.
That submission represented CDA counsel’s position. No final finding on the document’s authenticity or legal effect was recorded in the hearing account.
Compliance with Judicial Orders Stressed
Justice Minhas emphasised that compliance with a court order was a legal obligation rather than a courtesy.
He warned of consequences if action was taken contrary to judicial directions and said the dispute would be handled transparently, without unfair treatment of any party.
The judge questioned action against properties without lawful authority and proper procedure, observing that residents could not simply be removed and machinery deployed without following the law.
His remarks also reflected concern about the disruption caused by displacement and the time people need to adjust after losing access to their homes.
Addressing a reference made at an earlier hearing to an Afghan occupant, the judge distinguished the circumstances of an occupant from the rights and responsibilities of the property owner.
The court indicated that it wanted counsel to focus on enforceable rights and the applicable law.
Residents’ Lawyers Raise Displacement Concerns
Advocate Raja Rizwan Abbasi referred to conditions in the Bari Imam area, telling the court that women had been left cooking outdoors after roofs were brought down.
His submission concerned Bari Imam, rather than a finding about the particular Saidpur properties under consideration.
Abbasi, Qaiser Imam and other lawyers appeared for the affected residents, while Shehryar Tariq represented CDA.
Additional Deputy Commissioner General Islamabad Dr Anam Fatima, CDA’s Deputy Director General Enforcement and directors of the authority’s Enforcement Wing were also present.
Ahmad Raza Sarwar, identified in the hearing account as the interior secretary, remained in the courtroom to observe the proceedings.
Background to the Saidpur Dispute
The proceedings form part of a longstanding dispute over land acquisition, compensation, rehabilitation and residential protection in Saidpur, a historic settlement at the foot of Islamabad’s Margalla Hills.
In November 2020, the Islamabad High Court issued notices to CDA over a petition alleging that Saidpur residents had not been compensated. Then-chief justice Athar Minallah directed that the petition be heard alongside similar cases involving affected residents elsewhere in the capital.
Those proceedings show that compensation grievances had reached the court years before the latest hearing, although they do not establish the entitlement of each applicant in the present case.
Further litigation followed in 2026. APP reported on April 13 that Justice Minhas had issued an interim order preventing CDA from demolishing or sealing the petitioners’ properties until the next hearing. The court sought replies and directed that the petition be heard with Writ Petition No. 1488/2026.
The protection reported at that stage concerned the petitioners’ properties and did not constitute a final determination of ownership or compensation rights.
In September 2026, residents publicly sought protection against eviction and demanded transparent scrutiny of acquisition awards, payments and alternative-land arrangements.
They alleged that awards issued between 1962 and 1967 provided inadequate compensation and that some payments were delayed or made in instalments. These assertions were reported as the residents’ position, rather than established judicial findings.
The September report also recorded residents referring to a 2008 CDA decision concerning protection of the old village and its inhabitants. That administrative decision is distinct from the Supreme Court judgment mentioned during the latest hearing; their respective scope and application require examination of the original records.
Final Arguments on November 10
Justice Minhas directed counsel to arrive prepared for final arguments on November 10, focusing on the relevant legal questions and the effect of the earlier Supreme Court decision.
He indicated that he would be unavailable after November 11 and stressed that the next hearing should address the substantive legal issues.
The court adjourned the matter until November 10.
