Military land for commercial purposes: SC rejects compliance report of defence ministry

Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday rejected the compliance report of Defence Ministry regarding the court orders, which put a ban on use of military land for commercial purposes in metropolis. At Karachi Registry, a two-member bench of the SC comprising Justice Gulzar Ahmed and Justice Mazhar Alam took up the report of defence secretary, which was submitted in compliance with the court's orders issued on January 22, 2019 about the use of military land for commercial activities when the bench resumed the hearing on razing the encroachments.
Attorney General Anwar Mansoor Khan, Defence Secretary Ikramul Haq, representatives of cantonment boards and officials of various other departments appeared before the court. Following the submission of the report, Justice Gulzar termed the report unsatisfactory and said that it was merely eyewash as the court's orders were not implemented regarding the ban on use of military land for commercial purposes.
The court asked defence secretary to tell it as why its orders were not implemented when the attorney general said that only one point was not acted upon. "In fact, the whole order was not implemented," Justice Gulzar stated. Justice Gulzar said that this report is simply lollipop to deceive the court, at which the attorney general said that it is implementation report.
Justice Gulzar said that defence ministry is not acting upon the orders of the apex court. "If defence ministry is not to implement the orders, then the apex court should be shut down," he remarked. Justice Gulzar said that the defence secretary doesn't know anything about the situation as he is living in a comfortable zone in Islamabad when the defence secretary told the court that only two points of the order have been left to be acted upon.
Addressing the attorney general, Justice Gulzar said, "You are saying that the court's orders are being implemented, then why a marriage hall on the land of Pakistan Air Force (PAF) is being run." The bench head also observed that common man wants the removal of encroachment from cantonment areas first, then he would abolish the encroachment. He said that bulldozers would be ready to demolish the encroachments if the government was willing to do so.
The court also expressed displeasure over the report without the signatures of the authority concerned. "First take this report and get it signed from anyone," Justice Gulzar asked the defence secretary. About the allotment of nine acres of government land by Army to a private party, the court questioned why this land had been allotted and on whose orders, this was done.
The attorney general told the court that this land was allotted by a colonel of the army, who has now retired from the service. Justice Gulzar also questioned the occupation of land, allocated for parks and play grounds in the city and said that these lands have been usurped by naming them after martyrs and remarked that what sort of work is being carried out in the city.
The court rejected the review petition of the cantonment board against its order of January 22, which envisages use of military land for commercial activities. The bench also ordered defence secretary to ensure complete compliance of its orders, restraining use of military land for commercial purposes.