01-12-2010, 02:46 PM
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
By By Azeem Samar
Karachi
Despite the stubborn stance of the Defence Housing Authority (DHA) to make property owners in Phase-VII (extension) pay exorbitant sums in “differential costs,” residents of the area believe that the DHA should have desisted from putting such tracts of land on sale whose lease status was disputed.
Mohammad Abid Ozair, one such aggrieved property owner, told The News that he had purchased a 500-square-yard plot in July 2009 on Khayaban-e-Saadi, and went through the due procedures to get it transferred in his name. Similarly, he said, documents for Lease A and a building plan were also submitted. “During the whole process I was never informed about the DHA’s unjustified demand,” he said.
“In December 2009, I received a demand note of Rs1,072,500 from the DHA Finance Division, and the due date for payment is Jan 31, 2010. Since I am in the process of designing and constructing my house, demanding such a huge amount at this stage could halt my construction plans,” he said.
Ozair said that the DHA should have at least offered the facility of payment in installments for plot owners such as him, who were about to initiate construction of their houses. “Such a huge amount can only be paid in installments over a period of several years, otherwise it is impossible to pay out such a colossal sum.”
Another aggrieved plot owner, Mirza Amjad Sultan, currently residing in Gulshan-e-Iqbal, said that he had a 500-square-yard plot on Khayaban-e-Rizwan, Phase VII but was asked by the DHA to pay Rs1,072,500 in “differential charges.”
Sultan said that these charges, applied at a rate of Rs2,145 per square yard, is extremely high, and cannot be justified. According to the DHA, he continued, these charges are applicable to all residents and open plots of Khayaban-e-Saadi, Rizwan and Abbasi. The last date for paying these differential charges is January 31, 2010, after which a surcharge of 15 per cent per annum will be applicable – something which is breeding yet more apprehensions among the property owners of the area, he said.
While terming the sudden levy of differential cost on his plot as completely unjustified and illegal, Sultan said that had he been informed in time about the lease dispute between the DHA and the Sindh government, he would not have purchased the property from the previous owners.
Sources, meanwhile, explained that in several instances, residential and commercial plots have changed many hands, and thus, it would be unwise to recover the differential cost from the present owners of the property, who purchased the land without knowing its controversial status between the two agencies.
Moreover, property owners in DHA Phase-VII (ext.) have now started receiving bills from the DHA, showing hefty sums levied on them in differential charges. The DHA, on its part, has said that total differential cost amounting Rs1,342 million would all be paid to the Sindh government for settling the lease issue of 282 acres of land in Phase-VII (ext.), that had been acquired by the authority from the provincial government in 1992.
By By Azeem Samar
Karachi
Despite the stubborn stance of the Defence Housing Authority (DHA) to make property owners in Phase-VII (extension) pay exorbitant sums in “differential costs,” residents of the area believe that the DHA should have desisted from putting such tracts of land on sale whose lease status was disputed.
Mohammad Abid Ozair, one such aggrieved property owner, told The News that he had purchased a 500-square-yard plot in July 2009 on Khayaban-e-Saadi, and went through the due procedures to get it transferred in his name. Similarly, he said, documents for Lease A and a building plan were also submitted. “During the whole process I was never informed about the DHA’s unjustified demand,” he said.
“In December 2009, I received a demand note of Rs1,072,500 from the DHA Finance Division, and the due date for payment is Jan 31, 2010. Since I am in the process of designing and constructing my house, demanding such a huge amount at this stage could halt my construction plans,” he said.
Ozair said that the DHA should have at least offered the facility of payment in installments for plot owners such as him, who were about to initiate construction of their houses. “Such a huge amount can only be paid in installments over a period of several years, otherwise it is impossible to pay out such a colossal sum.”
Another aggrieved plot owner, Mirza Amjad Sultan, currently residing in Gulshan-e-Iqbal, said that he had a 500-square-yard plot on Khayaban-e-Rizwan, Phase VII but was asked by the DHA to pay Rs1,072,500 in “differential charges.”
Sultan said that these charges, applied at a rate of Rs2,145 per square yard, is extremely high, and cannot be justified. According to the DHA, he continued, these charges are applicable to all residents and open plots of Khayaban-e-Saadi, Rizwan and Abbasi. The last date for paying these differential charges is January 31, 2010, after which a surcharge of 15 per cent per annum will be applicable – something which is breeding yet more apprehensions among the property owners of the area, he said.
While terming the sudden levy of differential cost on his plot as completely unjustified and illegal, Sultan said that had he been informed in time about the lease dispute between the DHA and the Sindh government, he would not have purchased the property from the previous owners.
Sources, meanwhile, explained that in several instances, residential and commercial plots have changed many hands, and thus, it would be unwise to recover the differential cost from the present owners of the property, who purchased the land without knowing its controversial status between the two agencies.
Moreover, property owners in DHA Phase-VII (ext.) have now started receiving bills from the DHA, showing hefty sums levied on them in differential charges. The DHA, on its part, has said that total differential cost amounting Rs1,342 million would all be paid to the Sindh government for settling the lease issue of 282 acres of land in Phase-VII (ext.), that had been acquired by the authority from the provincial government in 1992.