Islamabad: The Federal Employees Cooperative Housing Society (FECHS), commonly known as Jinnah Garden Housing Scheme, has come under fresh scrutiny after an audit observation referred to the alleged illegal conversion and sale of around 200 kanals of land reserved for public facilities, valued at approximately Rs2 billion.
The matter has surfaced alongside orders passed by the Pakistan Information Commission in cases concerning access to records, while the Islamabad High Court has allowed verified affectees to be added to ongoing proceedings and permitted the society to issue transfer, allotment and possession letters to verified applicants, subject to legal requirements and the final outcome of the case.
The High Court has directed the society to complete the process within one month, raising hopes for people who have been waiting for plots, possession documents and clear information about the affairs of the society.
The Rs2 billion land issue was mentioned in an order dated October 6, 2026, passed by the Pakistan Information Commission in Appeal No. 5857-07/26, Awillia Rayn versus Federal Employees Cooperative Housing Society.
The Commission referred to an audit report concerning the accounts of certain public bodies, including the Punjab Government Employees Housing Authority, for 2024 to 2025. The report contained a specific observation about the alleged illegal conversion and sale of approximately 200 kanals reserved for public amenities in Jinnah Garden Phase I. The estimated value of the land was placed at around Rs2 billion.
The observation is significant as land reserved for public amenities is meant for facilities benefiting residents. Any alleged conversion or sale of such land raises questions about how the land was used, who approved the decisions and whether the public interest was protected.
The audit observation is not a final finding of criminal wrongdoing. However, the Information Commission treated the matter as important while deciding that the requested records related to public accountability and transparency.
Information Commission rejects society’s objections
In its October 6 order, the Pakistan Information Commission rejected the society’s objection that it was not a public body covered by the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017.
The Commission noted that FECHS is a cooperative housing society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. It observed that under Section 2(ix)(h) of the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017, a non-governmental organisation or body registered under any law can fall within the definition of a public body for the purposes of the Act.
The Commission also rejected the argument that the applicant could not obtain information because he was not a member of the society.
It clarified that information falling within the definition of public records cannot be withheld merely because the requester is not a member. The right to access such information is available to citizens under the law, subject to lawful exemptions.
The Commission further explained that public records include information about policies, transactions, acquisition and disposal of property, public expenditure, allotments, licences, contracts and agreements made by a public body.
The appeal was partially allowed. The Commission directed the society’s secretary to provide the information requested under Serial Numbers 1 to 10 within 10 days, while excluding personal information of society members and other information protected under the law.
The order also clarified that personal information, including CNIC details, cannot be disclosed where the law protects it.
Society secretary issued show-cause notice
A second order by the Pakistan Information Commission, dated October 22, 2026, added to the pressure on the society’s management.
In Appeal No. 6066-09/2026, Aimen Malik versus Federal Employees Cooperative Housing Society, the applicant appeared before the Commission, but no representative of the society attended the hearing.
According to the order, the Commission had issued two notices to the society’s secretary, first on September 18, 2026, and again on October 7, 2026. Despite these notices, the society did not submit a written reply or send anyone to appear before the Commission.
The Commission consequently issued a show-cause notice to the secretary under Section 20(1)(f) of the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017.
The secretary was directed to explain why proceedings should not be taken and why a fine should not be imposed for failing to appear before the Commission. He was also directed to submit the required information or a written response before the next hearing.
The matter was fixed for November 11, 2026.
The development has raised questions about why the society did not respond to the Commission despite formal notices, particularly when affectees are seeking information about matters concerning their property and legal rights.
High Court orders possession process within one month
A separate development came from the Islamabad High Court on October 1, 2026, in Criminal Original No. 73 of 2023, Muhammad Yamin versus Kamran Ali Cheema and others.
The court allowed applications seeking the inclusion of additional applicants in the proceedings. It held that earlier directions issued in the related judgment of May 11, 2022, could be relied upon by other people affected by their non-implementation. The applicants were, therefore, allowed to become parties to the proceedings.
During the hearing, the society’s counsel stated that the management was willing to address the grievances of the petitioners. The society submitted that claims would be processed and possession delivered according to the established seniority list and applicable regulations, after completion of the required legal formalities.
The court then modified earlier restrictions that had prevented the society from issuing allotment letters, transfer letters or changing the status of plots.
Under the modified order, the society is now permitted to issue transfer, allotment and possession letters strictly in favour of verified petitioners and affectees, subject to the final outcome of the proceedings and completion of legal requirements.
The court also issued directions regarding outstanding payments. If any legitimate dues remain against an affectee, the society must communicate the amount immediately. The affectee must deposit the amount within seven days of receiving the demand.
The society must then deliver possession immediately after payment. The entire process must be completed within a maximum period of one month.
The court directed the society to submit a comprehensive compliance report on November 11, 2026. It also ordered the general secretaries of the respondent societies, who were present in court, to appear personally at the next hearing.
The order further recorded that the earlier direction freezing the society’s bank accounts had already been recalled and withdrawn through an order dated September 15, 2026, in Review Application No. 06/2024.
Legal efforts for affectees
Mr Munir Ahmad, Advocate High Court, is representing affected allottees and pursuing legal action aimed at securing information, transparency and implementation of their rights.
According to information provided by the affectees’ legal team, Mr Munir Ahmad and his colleagues have been pursuing information requests under the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017, and seeking official records from the Capital Development Authority and the Registrar Cooperative Housing Societies.
Their efforts also include proceedings before the Pakistan Information Commission and the relevant courts to obtain information about allotments, land matters and the society’s responsibilities towards affected members.
The legal team has obtained certified copies of the relevant orders for use in further proceedings.
Mr Munir Ahmad has stressed the importance of obtaining accurate official information so that affectees can understand the actual position of their cases and take appropriate legal steps.
The Information Commission’s October 6 decision is significant because it confirms that the society cannot reject lawful information requests simply by arguing that the applicant is not a member.
The October 22 show-cause notice also shows that the Commission expects public bodies covered by the law to respond to its notices and provide information as required.
Questions over public land and transparency
The developments have brought three major issues into focus: the alleged conversion and sale of 200 kanals reserved for public amenities, the society’s response to information requests and the delay faced by affectees waiting for their plots.
The Rs2 billion audit observation requires a clear explanation of how the land was allegedly converted and sold, who approved the decisions, where the land is now recorded and whether any public facilities were affected.
The society is also expected to clarify why information requested by citizens was not provided within the legal time and why its secretary did not appear before the Information Commission despite receiving notices.
For affectees, the High Court’s order provides an opportunity to move their cases forward. However, the relief applies to verified petitioners and affectees, and remains subject to the court’s final decision, the seniority list and completion of legal formalities.
The orders do not establish that any named person has been convicted of corruption or that the alleged land conversion and sale have been finally proved to be illegal. The audit observation and legal proceedings remain subject to the relevant legal process, while the society and officials concerned have the opportunity to respond.
Nevertheless, the developments have placed pressure on the society to provide records, explain its position and comply with court directions.
With the next Information Commission and High Court proceedings scheduled for November 11, 2026, attention is now focused on whether FECHS will provide the required information and complete the possession process within the deadline.
For people waiting for clarity about their investments and plots, the central demand remains the disclosure of records, an explanation of land transactions, compliance with court orders and delivery of possession to every verified affectee entitled to receive it.
