Aqeel Dhedhi's housing projects being built on amenity land, SHC told

KARACHI: The plaintiff counsel, who challenged the construction of Creek Terraces and Creek View construction projects of stockbroker Aqeel Karim Dhedhi, argued before the Sindh High Court (SHC) on Friday that the projects in question were being built on land earmarked originally as amenity plots of DHA Phase VIII.

The court was hearing the lawsuit of Zahidullah Khan, a resident of DHA, who challenged the award of Creek Terraces and Creek View construction projects to stockbroker Aqeel Karim Dhedhi in the Creek City of DHA, Phase VIII. The plaintiff submitted that the construction was executed on the amenity land meant for park, graveyard, school and sewage treatment plant in Khayaban-e-Shaheen, Phase VIII. In another lawsuit, technical consultant Kashif Alam Associates also questioned the award of Creek Terraces and Creek View projects to the AKD Capital by the DHA contending that the firm had not participated in the bidding process.

The counsel of plaintiff, Salahuddin Ahmed, argued that the land for the Creek Terraces consisted of 25 acres and 18 acres for Creek View, totaling 43 acres in Phase VIII, Creek City, whereas in the original master plan issued by the DHA of Phase VIII of the same land consisted of amenity plots allocated for a park, school, sewage treatment plant and graveyard.

He said the amenity plots were designed for the benefit and use of general public as a necessity and under the main lease issued to the DHA, it cannot be used for any other purpose nor can it be sold, allotted or transferred to any private person including the defendants — Creek Developers, BF Property and Construction Pakistan and AKD Capital limited.

It was submitted that the DHA had launched the projects in names of Creek Terraces and Creek View, Creek City, in DHA, Phase-VIII whose land in the master layout plan was shown an amenity area but without permission of the federal government, the DHA illegally allowed the defendants to launch the projects. He also referred the Google images of the site mentioning that the land in question was shown as sewage treatment plant and other amenities in 2010 prior to construction of the impugned constructions.

He submitted that the project in question was being built on land earmarked originally as amenity plots, alleging that there had been blatant violations of the PPRA Rules 2004 in this project.