Islamabad: A major land controversy surrounding Sky Gardens, formerly known as Green Enclave II, has come under scrutiny after the Senate Standing Committee on Housing and Works was told that Rs5.4 billion had been released for development despite earlier warnings that disputed land could not be used for a housing project. The committee was further informed that around 2,600 kanals of land had now been physically retrieved from the private developer, with the administration marking the land and placing pillars at the site. The revelations have raised serious questions about how the project was approved, why a joint venture was signed despite official warnings, why development funds were released and why the withdrawal of a National Accountability Bureau no objection certificate in December 2023 was allegedly not brought before the committee earlier. The Senate committee, chaired by Senator Nasir Mehmood, took up the Green Enclave II and Sky Gardens matter during its meeting at Parliament House and decided to summon senior officials to explain how the disputed transactions and agreements took place. According to the briefing by NAB Director General Rizwan Khan, an inquiry into Green Enclave II, also known as Commerce Sky Gardens, was initiated on the basis of a Supreme Court judgment dated May 4, 2018. The central issue was the alleged conversion of Shamlaat land, which is common village land, into private land. NAB told the committee that the Supreme Court had placed a legal bar on the partition, construction and transfer of Shamlaat land and had declared such transactions illegal from the beginning. Despite this, more than 3,000 kanals in Moza Mengal were transferred to a private developer through two mutations in April 2018. The timing of these mutations became particularly controversial. NAB told the committee that the Supreme Court judgment came around 10 days after the mutations. The Naib Tehsildar Murree subsequently cancelled the mutations. However, after an appeal by the developer, the mutations were restored without following the required legal process, according to the NAB briefing. The issue did not end there. In April 2019, the Deputy Commissioner Murree wrote to the Federal Government Employees Housing Authority (FGEHA) and warned that the land was ineligible for a housing project because of the Supreme Court judgment. Despite this warning, the FGEHA Executive Board signed a joint venture agreement with the developer on October 11, 2019. The committee was told that 4,086 kanals were subsequently transferred to FGEHA and that by 2023, Rs5.4 billion had been released to the private contractor for development. Another issue raised before the committee was that the same party that supplied the land was also given the development contract without bidding. This raised further questions about the way the project was structured and approved. The controversy deepened over the role of NAB and two separate addenda. NAB officials told the committee that FGEHA had assured NAB in 2022 that it would not develop the disputed Moza Mengal land and would instead shift the project to Moza Kathar, which was described as clear private land. Based on that understanding, NAB closed its inquiry concerning Moza Mengal in May 2022. But according to the NAB briefing, after receiving the closure letter, FGEHA signed another addendum and brought Moza Mengal back into the project. The situation became even more serious when development funds were released. NAB said that after it learned in October 2023 that Rs5.4 billion was being released for development, it withdrew its no objection certificate and reopened the inquiry on December 12, 2023. The committee chairman questioned why FGEHA had entered into an agreement for land that had already been declared problematic. He said that if a project’s foundation was flawed, the entire project would face problems. The committee also questioned why FGEHA did not issue a warning to the developer after NAB withdrew its no objection certificate in December 2023. The Housing Secretary told the committee that FGEHA had called its joint venture partner and warned that the agreement could be cancelled if the partner failed to provide land free from legal complications. But the chairman was not satisfied. He pointed out that the committee had previously been told the NAB matter was complete, while the latest briefing showed that NAB had withdrawn its letter in December 2023 and reopened the inquiry. The chairman said this was a major issue and indicated that the committee would not leave the matter without further investigation. The committee then turned to recovering the disputed land. Revenue Officer Umer Owais told the committee that approximately 2,600 kanals had been retrieved so far. He said the entire Shamlaat land in the area had been marked in the official record with a red entry, making it non transferable. The district’s land record had also been digitised, with Shamlaat holdings digitally blocked to prevent further transactions. The administration also claimed that the recovery was not limited to paperwork. A show cause notice was issued to the Sky Gardens management on January 27, 2026. The management submitted its response on February 9, but officials said the response was unlawful and lacked supporting proof. An order was issued on March 17, 2026, after which officials went to the site. The administration found earthwork taking place and physically took back the relevant land. Officials demarcated the area and installed pillars and markings to identify the recovered land. The recovery report was also submitted to police, according to the briefing. The Secretary Housing questioned why he had not been informed about the physical recovery when he had visited the Commissioner’s office around two weeks earlier. The revenue officer replied that the matter had been discussed informally and that officials had planned to brief FGEHA and the Housing Ministry together. The chairman said the central question was simple: if the land had never been transferred, the controversy would not have developed. He questioned the role of the revenue officials who allowed the transfer and placed responsibility on FGEHA for accepting the land despite the Supreme Court judgment and the Deputy Commissioner’s
