MP lambasts legal cover for DHA

ISLAMABAD Ayaz Amir, PML-N MNA, in his dissenting note, blasted over privileged Defence Housing Authority (DHA) saying, We should not be confused or taken in by the name Defence Housing Authority.
He said, It is a housing society of the Armed Forces and its aim, like any other housing society, is the purchase and acquisition of land for the benefit of its members. This is a private business undertaking, which has nothing to do with national security.
According to him, There is no shortage of housing societies throughout the country. Indeed there are many federal government departments, which have their housing societies. All these are registered and incorporated under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 so it should be in the case of any housing society catering to the housing needs of services officers. The question of preferential treatment should not arise.
The PMLL-N MNA said, But when a housing society becomes a statutory body, it acquires a preferential status. It then becomes a law unto itself and is no longer subject to the municipal jurisdiction of the city in which it is located, he added. He questioned that what is now DHA Karachi was once upon a time Pakistan Defence Officers Cooperative Housing Society Ltd Karachi, registered under the same Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, by all accounts it was a good housing society and needed no act of Parliament to perform its function.
Old residents of Karachi would remember that in everyday usage it was always called Defence Society. No one had any problems with that, he said.
He observed, As in so many other things Gen Ziaul Haq set another bad precedence when he issued the Defence Officers Housing Authority Order, 1980, turning Defence Society Karachi into a statutory body. This was discrimination in favour of one housing society. First a Lahore Defence Housing Officer Authority was established through a provincial ordinance in 1990s. Then was promulgated the Defence Housing Authority Lahore Order, 2002, (given validity later by the Seventeenth Amendment).
He also said, Then it was Islamabads turn. In Feb 2005 Gen Musharraf created DHA Islamabad through another Ordinance. It is this ordinance, which is now before us. The issue is very simple. A housing society, whether of the armed forces or of astronauts flying into space, is a housing society. It performs no sovereign function for which a sovereign body needs to be created. If dictators who were answerable to no one set bad precedents in the past, a popularly-elected assembly should be under no compulsion to emulate their example or endorse their actions.
The lawmaker said, Karachi and Lahore Defence Authorities are done things, what in legalese are called closed and past transactions. But DHA Islamabad does not fall in this category. It is for us to redress a wrong, and throw this ordinance where it deserves to be-a waste paper basket- or validate a dictatorial legacy.
According to him, favouring one housing society over other is discriminatory in nature and, as such in direct conflict with Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution. The Specified areas covered by the Ordinance include parts of Punjab province falling in Rawalpindi District. Passing this bill will amount to altering a provincial boundary, without that provinces consent. This is ultra vires of the Constitution. Section 22 of the Ordnance is in violation of commitments made at international forums. This provision is discriminatory because in respect of all other bodies the Industrial Relations law is applicable.
He further said, section 18 relates to taxes and duties. A body, which in essence is a cooperative housing society cannot be given the sovereign power to impose taxes, duties and penalties. In the Islamabad Capital Territory municipal function is the responsibility of the CDA. How can these functions be ceded to any other authority? And for what purpose? Section 23 declaring certain employees as public servants is based on a false premise. What need for a private body to have its employees so designated?
The duties and functions of the federation are outlined in the Constitution. The federation can make law in relation to those duties and functions. What nexus has DHA Islamabad with any of the functions of the federation? It is no secret that DHA Islamabad has entered into several partnership agreements with a private entity, Bharia Town whose CEO is one Malik Riaz. What is the nature, and what are the details, of those agreements? Despite repeated please, no information was forthcoming.
The brief prepared for the committee by the Ministry of Defence states that presently DHA Islamabad owns 178,000 kanals of land. How much of this is Malik Riazs? The committee was kept in the dark about this matter.
Ayaz Amir also said, Bahria Town and its CEO have acquired notoriety in the realm of land grabbing. There is a plethora of cases, some of a criminal nature, pending against them on this count in various courts.
He also wrote in his dissenting note, This ordinance conferees sweeping powers on the DHAs Executive Borad: (It may) purchase or procure land...undertake any works in pursuance of any scheme or project... incur any expenditure... impose, recover, very or enhance development charges (in relation to) cost of apartments, housing units, commercial projects and transfer fees and other charges in respect of any property, plot or project within the area of the Authority... enter into contracts or any type of arrangement with any local or foreign entity... plan, develop and execute new developments and projects through joint ventures with local and international agencies, institutions and individuals...
He said, Is this housing society or dictatorship? Rural Islamabad and parts or Rawalpindi will be at the mercy of this Authority. There are innumerable legal complaints against Bahria Town relating to land grabbing and the forcible eviction of people form their ancestral homes. Imagine the increase in Bahria Towns muscle and power if it is allowed to march under the logo of DHA. The Navy has gone to court disputing Bahria Towns right to use its name (Bahria). And here we are being asked to allow Malik Riaz the use of another attractive title.
We should be under no illusions. In DHA Islamabad the fatade is the DHAs behind it lurks the figure of private entrepreneur. DHA Islamabad and Bahria Town are within their right or enter into any agreement they like. But why should Parliament be asked to give them its seal of approval?
Musharraf was his own master and could do as he pleased. Indeed this ordinance is a child of his dictatorship and could have been framed under no other dispensation. It has no place in a democracy and should never have been allowed to come before National Assembly, he concluded.