Oh really??!! How you ascertained these things from the verdict?? Courts are rather against this concept that government should run housing societies:
“All the institutions are doing the real estate business. This is a major clash of interests,” remarked the CJ of IHC.
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court remarked on Thursday that the court should be provided a satisfactory reply as to how come a government officer could run a real estate business, directly or...
www.thenews.com.pk
My reply was to the verdict which the article you yourself quoted says very clearly. You should read the article. Also remember that during that time PLMN governed Balochistan?
"The order quoted the act, which says that the executive board of the DHA had notified an area, calling it Controlled and Specified, of about 45,000 acres of land. DHA intends to acquire this land to carry out planning and development on it.
The court ruled that the government in 2015 did not have the authority to allot any land to a private or non-government entity.
It quoted Section 2(q), which states that a Controlled area consists of “lands that may be procured, purchased or acquired by, or leased to the [DHA] Authority in any area of Quetta and other Districts of Balochistan, as may be notified by the Authority, after the commencement of the Act”.
The court said that this permission granted to the DHA by the Balochistan government is unconstitutional. It said that only the federal and provincial government can acquire private land in the interest of the public.
Section 6(b)(14) says that “No master plan, planning or development scheme shall be prepared by any local body or agency for the specified area without prior consultation with, and approval of the [DHA] Executive Board.” Section 14(B) states the same.
The court said about this section that having to require permission from DHA is illegal. “The Notification dated May 30th 2018, requiring permission from the Executive Board of the DHA with regard to utilisation of the land in the Specified Area, is declared void and of no legal effect.”
The petitioner had also said that DHA is a private entity and so it can’t acquire land as otherwise provided by Land Acquisition Act.
The court said the same. “…but the housing society of the DHA, being a non-governmental authority, is private, as such, does not come within the definition of a public purpose. Hence, imposing restriction upon the right of a citizen, guaranteed by the Constitution, for the purpose of acquiring land in future, for a single private entity, is illegal,” it said."
The article you posted now has no relation to the case you mentioned in OP. Have some shame bro. You are intentionally misleading for your specific agenda. It is almost the same case as Bahria has with SBCA.
