IHC Restrains CDA from Cancelling or Transferring 10 Islamabad Plots

ISLAMABAD, October 10, 2026: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has issued an interim order protecting 10 residential plots allotted in Sector I-12/4 through NADRA’s electronic balloting system, restraining the Capital Development Authority (CDA) from cancelling, transferring or otherwise taking adverse action concerning the properties while also restricting further proceedings by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) on the same facts previously examined in an inquiry.

Justice Muhammad Azam Khan issued the written order on October 9, 2026, while hearing Writ Petition No. 5270 of 2026, filed by Sajid Aslam against the CDA, FIA and other respondents.

Barrister Hussnain Haider Thaheem appeared on behalf of the petitioner and argued that the disputed allotments represented lawful rehabilitation benefits granted against land acquired by the CDA for public purposes.

Court Restrains FIA and CDA

According to the written order, the High Court restrained the FIA Director General and the officer in charge of its Corporate Crime Circle, Islamabad, from reopening or proceeding with any inquiry or investigation, issuing notices under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or taking coercive action against the petitioner based on the same facts examined in FIA Inquiry No. RE-35/2024.

The court also restrained the CDA and its Member Estate from cancelling, transferring or alienating the 10 disputed plots, creating third-party interests or taking any other adverse action concerning the properties.

The interim directions were issued while disposing of the immediate stay request at this stage of the proceedings. The court has not yet determined the petitioner’s final entitlement or decided the underlying allegations.

Dispute Involves 111 Kanals of Acquired Land

The petition states that the CDA acquired approximately 111 kanals of land belonging to the affected family in Mouza Dheri Qilla, Islamabad, for public purposes.

According to the petitioner, the family remained entitled to rehabilitation benefits under the CDA’s applicable policies and had not received its due compensation for several years.

The petition maintains that on March 30, 2022, CDA conducted NADRA-based electronic balloting through which 10 residential plots were allotted in Sector I-12/4 against the family’s rehabilitation entitlement.

The disputed plots are numbered 908, 916, 918, 920, 921, 926, 949, 958, 963 and 1088.

Each plot measures approximately 30 by 60 feet.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that these 10 plots represented the only rehabilitation benefit obtained against the acquired land and that neither the petitioner nor the affected family had received any additional compensation constituting a double benefit.

Previous Eligibility Certificate Central to Dispute

An important aspect of the dispute concerns an earlier eligibility certificate allegedly associated with rehabilitation land in Punjab.

The FIA’s recently registered case alleges that the affected landowner, Aslam son of Samandar, had already obtained a rehabilitation benefit relating to state land in Multan district.

Investigators have questioned whether the subsequent Islamabad allotments amounted to duplicate compensation.

However, the petitioner has contested this allegation.

His counsel referred to historical records concerning Eligibility Certificate No. A-000099, dated October 27, 1965, and its reported cancellation in 1985.

The petitioner maintains that the relevant records demonstrate that no additional land benefit was received under the certificate and that the Islamabad allotments were therefore legitimate.

These competing interpretations of the historical compensation record remain central to the legal dispute.

FIA FIR Raises Separate Questions

The controversy developed further after the FIA Corporate Crime Circle registered FIR No. 50/2026 concerning the alleged irregular allotment of the same 10 plots.

The FIR, dated October 8, 2026 in the supplied record, follows FIA Inquiry No. 35/2024 and names several serving and former CDA officials and private individuals, including Sajid Aslam.

The case invokes Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code, read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

The allegations concern suspected irregular documentation, misuse of official authority and the grant of allegedly duplicate rehabilitation benefits.

The FIA’s version differs from the petitioner’s position. The FIR describes the allotments as irregular, while the petition maintains that the family’s entitlement was established under the CDA rehabilitation process.

Significantly, the petitioner’s counsel argued before the High Court that the earlier FIA record had declared the petitioner no longer required for the purposes of the inquiry and that his plots were not implicated in any resulting FIR.

However, the FIR supplied in the case materials names Sajid Aslam among the accused. The High Court’s interim order does not finally resolve this apparent inconsistency between the petitioner’s submissions and the FIR.

The allegations in the criminal case remain unproven, and registration of an FIR does not establish criminal liability.

Petition Challenges Repeated Proceedings

During arguments, Barrister Hussnain Haider Thaheem maintained that reopening an inquiry previously examined by the FIA, without fresh evidence or an independent lawful basis, would amount to an improper repetition of proceedings.

The petition also invokes Article 13 of the Constitution, which addresses protection against double punishment and self-incrimination.

The lawyer argued that renewed proceedings involving the same factual foundation, together with possible action against the plots, would prejudice the petitioner’s legal rights.

These were submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner rather than final constitutional findings by the court.

High Court Seeks Replies From Respondents

After hearing the arguments, Justice Muhammad Azam Khan observed in the written order that the points raised required consideration.

The court issued notices to the respondents and directed them to submit paragraph-wise comments and reports before the next hearing, with advance copies to be provided to the petitioner’s counsel.

The interim protection will operate in accordance with the court’s directions while the matter remains pending.

What the Court’s Order Means

The order temporarily preserves the existing position of the disputed properties and restricts the FIA from pursuing the petitioner on the same facts examined in the specified inquiry.

It does not, however, amount to a final judicial declaration that the plots were lawfully allotted, nor does it expressly quash FIR No. 50/2026 or determine the criminal responsibility of the people named in it.

The case is expected to turn on the documentary history of the land acquisition, the earlier eligibility certificate, the 2022 electronic balloting and the legal basis for the FIA proceedings.

The CDA and FIA will have an opportunity to present their positions before the court as the petition proceeds.

The matter remains sub judice, and the final legal status of the disputed allotments will depend on subsequent judicial proceedings.