Possession, nine-tenths of ownership?

EDITORIAL: It turns out that more than 3,000 government houses in Karachi are under illegal occupation, an audit objection concerning them has remained pending for over two decades, and the problem itself has apparently persisted for around 40 years.

That combination says considerably more about the state’s inability to protect public property than the number of houses alone. The Public Accounts Committee subcommittee has now been told that 925 houses have been vacated and that recoveries are due from occupants. The remaining cases must be resolved according to law, because allowing illegal possession to mature into an entitlement would establish a precedent far more damaging than the original encroachment.

The suggestion before the committee that regularisation or transfer of the properties to occupants might offer a way out deserves particular caution. Some occupants reportedly claim ownership and possess documents whose validity is disputed, and genuine legal claims must obviously receive due process. But valid title and illegal occupation are fundamentally different matters. Where ownership can be established lawfully, it should be recognised. Where government property has simply been occupied without legal authority, handing it over because possession has continued for years would effectively reward the failure to enforce the law.

That is precisely the danger highlighted by the PAC subcommittee. Once illegal occupation becomes a possible route to eventual ownership, every encroachment acquires an incentive to endure. The housing secretary’s description of the matter as a political problem is revealing. Attempts to vacate the properties reportedly bring occupants onto the streets and attract support from elected representatives. Such pressure may explain why the issue has survived for decades, but it cannot determine the ownership of public assets. Elected representatives are entitled to defend constituents against arbitrary action; they cannot reasonably demand that unlawful possession be converted into property rights merely because enforcement has become politically inconvenient.

The fact that the problem has remained unresolved for so long also raises serious questions about successive administrations. Government housing is a public asset maintained for public purposes, and the state has an obligation to know who occupies it, under what authority and on what terms. An audit objection remaining alive for more than 20 years suggests prolonged administrative failure. The involvement of NAB, which is conducting an inquiry, should now help establish how the occupations occurred, whether officials facilitated them, what dues remain outstanding and where responsibility lies.

This cannot be treated as Karachi’s problem alone. Encroachment on public land and property is a recurring governance failure across the country, and provincial governments must cooperate with federal authorities wherever enforcement requires their administrative or policing support. A consistent approach is essential. Selective eviction in one jurisdiction alongside political regularisation elsewhere would only reinforce the perception that possession, connections and pressure ultimately matter more than title.

Forty years is already an extraordinary amount of time for the state to decide who owns its own houses. Allowing another generation of illegal possession to settle the question would turn administrative failure into government policy.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026