Members Portal
Members Portal

Bahria Town Pvt. Ltd. (BTPL) – A Comprehensive Investigation

BRACE OFFICIAL

Introduction:
Bahria Town Pvt. Ltd. (BTPL), founded by Malik Riaz Hussain, is Pakistan’s largest private real estate developer. Over decades, it has built sprawling gated communities across major cities. However, this expansion is marred by allegations of illegal land acquisitions, financial impropriety, regulatory violations, and human rights abuses. This report investigates BTPL’s history, the roles of affiliated entities like Vicky Trading and Tahir Nihad, the involvement of the Bahria Residents Association for Civic Empowerment (BRACE), documented illegalities, breaches of regulations under various authorities, and key legal cases. It concludes with legal avenues and recommendations to hold BTPL and Malik Riaz accountable, invoking Pakistani laws and international anti-corruption frameworks.

1. History and Expansion of BTPL

Founding and Business Model: Malik Riaz established Bahria Town in the late 1990s after a failed joint venture with the Pakistan Navy’s charitable trust. Through a Supreme Court ruling in 2001, he retained the right to use the name “Bahria” for his private company. Riding Pakistan’s real estate boom in the 2000s, Bahria Town’s business model focused on developing self-contained, luxury housing schemes with private infrastructure (electricity, water, security) – effectively “a functioning state within a non-functioning one”. These developments catered to Pakistan’s growing middle and upper classes, often seen as second only to the military-run Defence Housing Authority (DHA) projects.

Rapid Expansion: Bahria Town grew from its first projects in Rawalpindi/Islamabad to large-scale communities in Lahore and Karachi. Bahria Town Karachi, launched in 2014, spans over 46,000 acres and is among South Asia’s largest private developments. The company also ventured into financial services, acquiring an investment bank in 2017 to facilitate housing finance for buyers. Malik Riaz’s network and alleged “unholy alliance” with powerful military and political figures fueled this expansion, enabling Bahria to acquire vast tracts of land through influence and possibly coercion.

Land Acquisition Strategies: Bahria Town’s growth has often involved controversial land deals. Investigations and whistleblower accounts allege that many lands were not acquired through legal means, but via collusion with officials and coercion of local landowners. For example, Bahria Town Karachi’s development in Malir, Sindh, displaced indigenous villages; protests against these evictions in 2021 were met with violence ([

Pakistan: Villagers protesting evictions and Bahria Town luxury estate expansion met with violence and arrests - Business & Human Rights Resource Centre


](https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/pakistan-villagers-protesting-evictions-and-bahria-town-luxury-estate-expansion-met-with-violence-and-arrests/#:~:text=bulldozers%20returned%20on%207%20May,be%20in%20future%2C%E2%80%9D%20he%20tweeted)). Similarly, in Rawalpindi, Bahria Town was accused of encroaching on 1,416 acres of forest land (Rakh Takht Pari and Lohi Bheer forests) by bribing revenue officials ([Forest land allegedly occupied by Bahria Town | eProperty®](https://eproperty.pk/forest-land-allegedly-occupied-by-bahria-town/#:~:text=In%20his%20petition%2C%20Shafi%20contended,make%20way%20for%20housing%20units)) ([Forest land allegedly occupied by Bahria Town | eProperty®](https://eproperty.pk/forest-land-allegedly-occupied-by-bahria-town/#:~:text=Punjab%20govt%20yet%20to%20furnish,Bheer%20forest%20by%20Bahria%20Town)). These tactics reflect a **pattern of land grabbing and encroachment** behind Bahria’s rapid expansion.

Financial Dealings and Partnerships: BTPL’s financing model relies on advance payments from allottees and continuous cash flows from new bookings. Malik Riaz leveraged this cash-rich model to invest in other ventures and settle disputes. Notably, in 2019 he reached a £190 million settlement with the UK’s National Crime Agency (NCA) over unexplained assets, which was repatriated to Pakistan to help cover a Supreme Court-imposed fine on Bahria Town (Malik Riaz – Wikipedia). BTPL’s opaqueness in finances – exemplified by internal money transfers (detailed below via Vicky Trading) – has raised concerns of money laundering, tax evasion, and use of benami accounts to hide profits (Trading company linked with Malik Riaz’s Bahria Town under Investigation for ‘money laundering’ – Pakistan Observer) (Trading company linked with Malik Riaz’s Bahria Town under Investigation for ‘money laundering’ – Pakistan Observer).

Legal Disputes in Expansion: From the start, Bahria Town was entangled in legal fights. The Pakistan Navy litigated to stop Malik Riaz from using the name “Bahria,” but the Supreme Court ruled in his favor in 2001. Over the years, BTPL faced numerous court cases: from former partners disputing land deals to public interest litigations challenging its legality. A major legal watershed came in May 2018 when the Supreme Court declared Bahria’s acquisition of land in Karachi illegal and imposed a ₨460 billion fine as a settlement for Bahria Town Karachi to continue operations (Malik Riaz – Wikipedia). This unprecedented fine (to be paid over 7-8 years) underscored the extent of illegalities in Bahria’s land acquisitions and served as a conditional legality for the project moving forward.

2. Vicky Trading – Connections with Bahria Town

Vicky Trading Pvt. Ltd. – A Financial Front: Vicky Trading is a trading company that investigators have linked to Bahria Town’s financial transactions. Between 2014 and 2018, over ₨300 billion flowed from Bahria Town’s accounts into Vicky Trading’s multiple bank accounts (Trading company linked with Malik Riaz’s Bahria Town under Investigation for ‘money laundering’ – Pakistan Observer) (Trading company linked with Malik Riaz’s Bahria Town under Investigation for ‘money laundering’ – Pakistan Observer). An FBR inquiry (initiated in 2019 under the Anti-Money Laundering Act 2010) uncovered suspicious transfers totaling ₨319 billion with no clear economic purpose, indicating laundering and tax evasion. The company had 18 bank accounts and almost no employees, suggesting it existed solely to park and move Bahria Town funds off-books. Vicky Trading’s directors (Waqas Riffat, Waseem Riffat, Bilal Bashir, Mohammad Awais) are accused of concealing assets and facilitating land purchases on Bahria’s behalf without recording them on the company’s books. In 2024, a Special Court for Customs and Taxation issued show-cause notices indicating discrepancies of ₨82.8 billion and demanded ₨23.5 billion in taxes from Vicky Trading. This case highlights a possible money laundering network used by Malik Riaz’s BTPL to siphon and stash funds, now under trial for criminal financial misconduct.

Tahir Nihad Bajwa – Resident Activist and Whistleblower: Tahir Nihad (Tahir Nihad Bajwa) is a prominent Bahria Town resident activist. As the President of BRACE (Bahria Residents Association for Civic Empowerment), he has been at the forefront of exposing BTPL’s malpractices and fighting for residents’ rights. In 2024, Tahir Nihad and others filed a petition in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) challenging Bahria Town’s exorbitant electricity tariffs and illegal billing practices (IHC issue notices on plea against Bahria Town for charging exorbitant power tariff – The Law Today Pakistan – An Independent News Wire Service). Advocate Umer Ijaz Gilani, on behalf of Tahir Nihad and co-petitioners, argued that Bahria Town (Respondent No.3) was overcharging residents far above the rates of the Islamabad Electric Supply Company (IESCO) and retaliating by disconnecting meters when residents protested. The IHC took notice and directed NEPRA (the power regulator) and IESCO to address these grievances, recognizing that BTPL has “no lawful authority” to issue electricity bills after its license was revoked. Tahir Nihad has also publicly highlighted issues like unauthorized maintenance fee hikes, encroachments on amenity plots, and harassment of residents, making him a key figure in mobilizing legal and civic action against Malik Riaz’s empire. His efforts underscore the role of community advocacy in confronting BTPL’s irregularities.

3. BRACE’s Role in Bahria Town Affairs

Formation and Mission: BRACE (Bahria Residents Association for Civic Empowerment) is an association of Bahria Town residents (initially in Rawalpindi/Islamabad Phases 1-8) dedicated to empowering the community, ensuring service transparency, and upholding residents’ rights. It was formed as a response to the growing discontent over BTPL’s management practices. BRACE’s mission statement emphasizes “respecting the rule of law” and “advocating for residents’ rights” by engaging with authorities and demanding accountability. The association fosters unity among homeowners to collectively negotiate issues like billing, maintenance, and infrastructure with the Bahria Town management.

Support for Protests and Legal Action: BRACE has actively supported residents’ protests against Bahria Town’s policies. In May 2024, Bahria Town residents in Rawalpindi (Phase 8) staged a protest against exorbitant electricity bills and unauthorized charge increases. BRACE, led by Tahir Nihad Bajwa, backed this protest along with the local real estate business community, underscoring that the housing society’s practices were “unjust and illegal”. The protest prompted Bahria’s management to temporarily assure resolution, but retaliatory actions (like digging up roads and cutting power to protesters’ homes) were later reported. BRACE also engages with regulators: its members lodged complaints with RDA about illegal constructions in Bahria Town, triggering regulatory inspections. Through social media and public forums, BRACE disseminates information on Bahria Town’s legal obligations and encourages residents to withhold payments on illegal charges (e.g., an organized boycott of Bahria’s bills was declared in 2024). In essence, BRACE acts as a civil society watchdog, gathering evidence of BTPL’s violations and pressing for enforcement of laws – thereby playing a pivotal role in building a legal case against Malik Riaz and his affiliates.

4. Documented Illegalities of Bahria Town

Bahria Town and Malik Riaz face numerous allegations substantiated by official reports and court findings. Key illegalities include:

  • Fraud & Cheating Allottees: Bahria Town has been accused of defrauding plot allottees by overbooking, delayed projects, and bounced refund cheques. (E.g., the Bahria Town Karachi scheme faced investor lawsuits in 2021 for failing to deliver plots and issuing post-dated cheques that later bounced, indicating a Ponzi-scheme-like fraud.) The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) has launched inquiries into Bahria’s deceptive marketing and “cheating the public at large” through such scams.
  • Land Grabbing & Encroachment: There is significant evidence of land grabbing. In Rawalpindi, Bahria illegally occupied 1,416 acres of forest land (684 acres in Takht Pari and 732 acres in Lohi Bheer) in 2005 (Forest land allegedly occupied by Bahria Town | eProperty®) (Forest land allegedly occupied by Bahria Town | eProperty®). A Supreme Court suo motu case heard that Bahria’s management even used local police to prevent forest officials from demarcating the stolen land and held officials hostage during an attempted survey (Forest land allegedly occupied by Bahria Town | eProperty®) (Forest land allegedly occupied by Bahria Town | eProperty®). The “unholy alliance” with elements of the military and bureaucracy allegedly helped Bahria Town secure such lands, sometimes returning a portion as developed plots to influential backers. In Islamabad, 510 kanals of state land were encroached by Bahria Enclave (a BTPL project); Bahria built roads, houses, and even a zoo on this land. The Capital Development Authority (CDA) documented this encroachment and sealed illegal structures in 2024.
  • Money Laundering & Off-Book Transactions: Investigations point to massive money laundering operations. FBR’s probe into Vicky Trading revealed ₹319 billion funneled from Bahria to this obscure company, likely to launder money or hold “benami” assets. The company’s lack of business activity despite huge inflows indicates it was a shell for Malik Riaz’s funds. Additionally, Malik Riaz’s wealth triggered international scrutiny – the UK’s NCA froze tens of millions of pounds of his assets under the Proceeds of Crime Act, culminating in a £190 million settlement in 2019 (including £140M cash and a £50M London property) (Malik Riaz – Wikipedia). While Malik Riaz avoided admitting guilt, this civil settlement effectively repatriated illicit wealth to Pakistan. Bahria Town’s pattern of cash transactions, overseas investments, and use of front companies like Vicky Trading strongly suggest systematic money laundering and cross-border transfer of ill-gotten gains.
  • Corruption & Bribery: Bahria Town’s rise is widely attributed to corruption. It’s alleged Malik Riaz kept “a handful of important army officers, bureaucrats and lawyers” on his payroll. Courts have heard that he bribed public officials to obtain favors, from illegal land allotments to silence over violations. In 2012, Malik Riaz himself admitted in court that he had paid huge sums (around ₨342 million) and provided perks to Arsalan Iftikhar (son of the then Chief Justice) to influence cases – though he claimed it was extorted from him. NAB has multiple cases open against Malik Riaz for corrupt practices, kickbacks, and collusion with government functionaries. Each instance paints a picture of BTPL operating above the law through bought influence, thus undermining public institutions.
  • Unauthorized Tax Collection & Fiscal Misconduct: Bahria Town is accused of acting as an unlawful taxing authority within its projects. “Maintenance charges” and development fees are imposed on residents without transparency or regulatory approval. Residents complain these fees are excessive and often arbitrarily increased. Moreover, BTPL historically collected electricity bill payments and even taxes (like withholding tax on utility connections) from residents, amounts that should legally go to state coffers or utilities. The FBR’s investigations and the Special Court case against Vicky Trading indicate tax evasion on a massive scale – concealing transactions and under-reporting income by BTPL and its proxies (Trading company linked with Malik Riaz’s Bahria Town under Investigation for ‘money laundering’ – Pakistan Observer) (Trading company linked with Malik Riaz’s Bahria Town under Investigation for ‘money laundering’ – Pakistan Observer). The company’s practices essentially create a parallel economy, contravening the Income Tax Ordinance and Sales Tax laws (if services tax on maintenance is evaded). Authorities have started scrutinizing these unauthorized collections as part of broader fraud inquiries.
  • Human Rights Violations: Bahria Town’s pursuit of land and profit has led to alleged human rights abuses. The forced evictions of villagers in Karachi’s Malir for Bahria Town Karachi drew national attention. When indigenous residents protested the demolition of their homes and grabbed land, Bahria’s private security and police responded with violence – firing on protesters, beating many, and orchestrating the arrest of over 100 activists in June 2021 ([ Pakistan: Villagers protesting evictions and Bahria Town luxury estate expansion met with violence and arrests – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre ](https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/pakistan-villagers-protesting-evictions-and-bahria-town-luxury-estate-expansion-met-with-violence-and-arrests/#:~:text=bulldozers%20returned%20on%207%20May,be%20in%20future%2C%E2%80%9D%20he%20tweeted)). Eyewitnesses recounted how Bahria guards shot at unarmed villagers and falsely implicated local activists, prompting human rights organizations to condemn the crackdown. Additionally, within Bahria Town communities, intimidation tactics are reported against residents who speak out (e.g., cutting off basic utilities, as seen in Rawalpindi Phase-8 protests). Such actions violate fundamental constitutional rights – including the right to peaceful assembly, property rights of locals, and the right to life and security. The lack of accountability for these abuses is a serious concern raised by human rights defenders.

In sum, these documented illegalities provide a factual foundation for a legal case against BTPL and Malik Riaz – establishing patterns of fraud, land theft, money laundering, corruption, illegal fee collection, and human rights infringements.

5. Regulatory Violations by Bahria Town

BTPL’s operations have repeatedly breached regulations set by various Pakistani authorities. Key regulatory bodies and related violations include:

  • Rawalpindi Development Authority (RDA): Bahria Town’s projects in Rawalpindi fell under RDA’s purview, yet BTPL often bypassed RDA rules. For instance, Bahria Town Phase-8’s layout plan was not approved or uploaded with RDA as required. Residents pointed out illegal constructions on land earmarked for parks, green belts, and roads. In April 2024, after complaints by a residents’ association, RDA inspected Phase-8 and found encroachments on amenity plots and unapproved buildings, sealing some under-construction sites. RDA officials also warned the public not to invest in unapproved (illegal) schemes. These actions imply BTPL violated Punjab’s Private Housing Schemes and Land Subdivision Rules and RDA Act provisions by expanding or modifying the scheme without consent, and by selling plots on unapproved extensions.
  • Capital Development Authority (CDA): In Islamabad, Bahria Enclave was found to be illegally occupying CDA-acquired land. CDA’s 2018 notice (under Section 49-C of the CDA Ordinance 1960) to Bahria Enclave revealed encroachment of 510 kanals of state land. Bahria ignored the notice, prompting CDA to attempt an operation (later stalled) and finally, in May 2024, to seal several structures including Bahria Enclave’s main offices built on encroached land. The CDA report noted Bahria had even constructed a zoo and sold houses on government land near the Enclave’s main gate. Such actions violate the ICT Zoning Regulation and CDA’s land use rules. Additionally, use of the name “Bahria” in Islamabad has been contentious; courts ruled that private entities can’t use military names, but Malik Riaz circumvented this due to a prior Navy partnership. The bottom line: Bahria Enclave’s encroachments constituted clear breaches of law, forcing CDA to invoke enforcement powers.
  • Lahore Development Authority (LDA): In Lahore, LDA declared multiple Bahria Town projects illegal due to lack of approval/NOC. According to LDA’s official records, Bahria’s Golf View Residencia (a sector adjacent to Bahria Town Lahore) is listed as an “illegal scheme” (2,000 kanals, partially developed without LDA sanction). Similarly, Bahria Orchard (various Phases) and Bahria Education & Medical City are on LDA’s September 2024 list of illegal housing schemes (Beware of These Illegal Housing Societies in Lahore – September 2024 Update – Pakistan Observer). These projects were marketed and sold by BTPL without mandatory LDA approvals, flouting the Lahore Development Authority Act and Private Housing Scheme Rules. LDA regularly issues public warnings and even conducts crackdowns on such schemes, which pose risks to buyers due to lack of proper layout planning and legal status. BTPL’s failure to secure NOCs for these Lahore projects reflects willful non-compliance with regulatory requirements.
  • Sindh Building Control Authority (SBCA): In Karachi, the SBCA has taken a firm stance that all construction in Bahria Town Karachi (BTK) was unauthorized and illegal from its perspective. Bahria Town Karachi obtained an initial layout approval from the Malir Development Authority (MDA) in 2014, but did not fulfill conditions for a final No Objection Certificate (NOC). Despite that, BTK launched massive marketing campaigns (e.g., the “Bahria Greens” project) without the sale/advertisement NOC required by Section 5 of the Sindh Building Ordinance 1979. SBCA informed the Sindh High Court in 2020 that Bahria continued to build multi-storey structures without any approved building plans or NOCs from SBCA or related agencies, in defiance of a Supreme Court ban on high-rise construction beyond six floors. Public notices were issued as early as Nov 2018 declaring Bahria’s construction illegal. Thus, BTPL violated multiple provisions of Sindh’s construction and town planning laws, proceeding with BTK’s development in a legal vacuum. (Notably, in late 2024 SBCA reportedly restored a provisional NOC for BTK after some compliance, but the period of unapproved construction is well-documented.)
  • National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA): Bahria Town’s operation of its own electricity distribution network was largely unlawful. From 2002 to 2010, Bahria distributed electricity in its housing schemes without any license, essentially acting as an unregulated power utility. NEPRA retroactively granted Bahria a 20-year distribution license in November 2010 (controversially bypassing IESCO’s territorial rights). This license itself was contested in court by IESCO, and amid allegations of irregularities, Bahria surrendered the license in 2020, leading NEPRA to revoke it on October 16, 2020. Critically, even after license revocation, Bahria Town kept charging residents for electricity and added unauthorized surcharges. NEPRA ruled in April 2023 that Bahria had no right to bill consumers and ordered immediate transfer of billing to IESCO. Bahria’s non-compliance with NEPRA’s orders and continued overbilling (charging up to Rs. 15.66 per unit above approved tariffs) violate the NEPRA Act 1997 and the terms of NEPRA’s 2020 decision. Furthermore, Bahria’s alleged practice of disallowing net-metering credits (for residents’ solar panels) and ignoring consumer complaints contravenes NEPRA’s consumer service regulations. Overall, BTPL’s electricity supply role has been deemed illegal and exploitative by regulators and courts alike.
  • Federal Board of Revenue (FBR): As Pakistan’s tax authority, FBR has scrutinized Bahria Town for tax fraud and unauthorized collections. The case of Vicky Trading shows Bahria Town’s pattern of moving taxable profits off its books (potentially to evade income tax) (Trading company linked with Malik Riaz’s Bahria Town under Investigation for ‘money laundering’ – Pakistan Observer). FBR investigators found non-disclosure of transactions and concealed assets by the company linked to Bahria (Trading company linked with Malik Riaz’s Bahria Town under Investigation for ‘money laundering’ – Pakistan Observer) (Trading company linked with Malik Riaz’s Bahria Town under Investigation for ‘money laundering’ – Pakistan Observer). Additionally, Bahria’s direct billing of services (electricity, maintenance) raises questions about sales tax on services – if Bahria isn’t licensed to provide electricity, any GST charged on bills could be unlawful. Bahria’s collection of advance taxes or fees without depositing them to the exchequer would violate the Income Tax Ordinance. In one instance, Bahria was reportedly charging its own “withholding tax” on property transactions and utility connections without authority, effectively an illegal tax. While FBR’s major action so far is the ₨23 billion tax demand via the money laundering inquiry (Trading company linked with Malik Riaz’s Bahria Town under Investigation for ‘money laundering’ – Pakistan Observer), more tax audits and penalties could follow. The scale of Rs. 319 billion funneled through a shell firm suggests massive tax evasion, prompting FBR to apply anti-money laundering provisions and seek prosecution (Trading company linked with Malik Riaz’s Bahria Town under Investigation for ‘money laundering’ – Pakistan Observer) (Trading company linked with Malik Riaz’s Bahria Town under Investigation for ‘money laundering’ – Pakistan Observer).

Each of these violations strengthens the case that Bahria Town habitually flouts regulatory laws – from municipal planning rules to federal tax and power regulations. The pattern is one of operating outside legal boundaries, necessitating enforcement and judicial intervention.

6. Legal Precedents & Court Cases Against BTPL and Affiliates

There is a trail of litigation and legal decisions concerning Bahria Town, Malik Riaz, and related entities:

  • Supreme Court Judgments (2018–2019): The Supreme Court of Pakistan’s intervention has been pivotal. In May 2018, the Court, in a suo motu case, declared the land grant of Bahria Town Karachi by the Malir Development Authority illegal, halting further sales and directing that payments by allottees be deposited in court. Negotiations led to a ₨460 billion settlement (officially sanctioned in March 2019), allowing BTK to continue but under hefty financial penalty, payable over 7 years to the government (Malik Riaz – Wikipedia). The Court’s order underscored that public land was unlawfully sold to Bahria and that the penalty would “wipe the slate clean” for those specific illegalities. Separately, the Supreme Court took up the Takht Pari forest land case, pressing Punjab authorities to report on Bahria’s encroachments (Forest land allegedly occupied by Bahria Town | eProperty®) (Forest land allegedly occupied by Bahria Town | eProperty®) – this case highlighted how Bahria’s collusion stopped law enforcement, though final resolution is pending demarcation results. Moreover, in January 2018, the Supreme Court banned high-rise construction beyond six floors in Karachi (affecting Bahria’s projects), and in May 2018, it ordered Bahria Town Karachi allottees to deposit installments with the Court rather than Bahria (to safeguard buyers’ funds). These apex court actions set important precedents: private developers cannot bypass law, and ill-gotten land deals can be unwound or heavily penalized.
  • NAB Investigations and Cases: Pakistan’s National Accountability Bureau has pursued multiple cases:
    • NAB Karachi has an ongoing case on Bahria Town Karachi’s land allotment (illegal exchange of land with the government). Malik Riaz was initially facing arrest warrants when he failed to appear, but the SC settlement paused some NAB action. However, NAB still encourages victims of any Bahria fraud to come forward.
    • In Punjab, NAB took cognizance of alleged collusion in land acquisitions. A retired military officer, Lt Col Tariq Kamal, filed an application to NAB alleging Bahria obtained land via illegal means with military help. This led NAB to at least start an inquiry (status unknown, possibly subsumed by SC cases).
    • NAB also reportedly looked into Bahria Icon Tower (Karachi) corruption and other BTPL ventures where public land or funds were involved. While Malik Riaz often negotiates settlements (as seen in the UK case or SC case), NAB’s mandate means criminal proceedings can still occur for fraud and public cheating. For example, in 2020, NAB Lahore initiated an inquiry into Bahria Town for failing to deliver plots and using booking money, which is effectively investigation of a real estate scam.
    • Vicky Trading Money Laundering Case: While spearheaded by FBR in the Special Court, NAB could also invoke jurisdiction under the National Accountability Ordinance (as laundering and corruption) given the volume (₨319 billion). The progress, as of 2024, is slow – notices issued but trial ongoing. Still, it stands as a legal case directly tying an entity to Bahria’s financial misconduct.
  • Islamabad High Court (IHC) – Electricity Overbilling Case: In 2024, the IHC, through Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, took up the petition by Tahir Nihad and residents against Bahria Town’s illegal electricity operations. The IHC’s interim order in June 2024 directed NEPRA to hear the residents’ complaints and take action, acknowledging the prima facie violation of fundamental rights by Bahria’s billing practices. NEPRA was expected to enforce its 2023 decision to transfer billing to IESCO. This case is ongoing, but it sets a precedent that residents can seek constitutional relief when a private developer usurps a public utility function without authority. It also establishes that Bahria’s continued billing post-license-revocation is unlawful, bolstering potential criminal liability under electricity theft or misrepresentation statutes.
  • Sindh High Court (SHC) – SBCA vs. Bahria Case: In 2020, SHC heard the case where SBCA declared Bahria’s Karachi construction illegal. The case was initially about Bahria Greens advertisements without NOC, but SBCA’s broader statements (no approvals for BTK) became part of the record. SHC likely issued directives for Bahria to obtain proper approvals or halt projects. Additionally, after the violent protests in June 2021, a petition was filed in SHC regarding Bahria Town Karachi riots and arrests of activists. While not a direct case against BTPL, it brought forth issues of land rights and state collusion. The legal outcome included bail for many activists, but it highlighted the social fallout of Bahria’s expansion being addressed in court.
  • Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) Fine (2018): A lesser-known but relevant case was a CCP decision in 2018 where Bahria Town was fined PKR 2 million for anti-competitive practices. Bahria was found to have abused its dominant position by not allowing a telecom provider (Nayatel) to service residents, effectively giving a monopoly to PTCL. This violated Section 3 of the Competition Act 2010. Although a small fine, it’s a legal finding that BTPL engaged in illegal business practices restricting consumer choice.
  • International Cases: Beyond Pakistan, Malik Riaz has faced legal issues abroad:
    • The UK NCA case (2018-2019) – resolved by settlement but notable as it was a foreign enforcement of anti-corruption laws leading to asset recovery (Malik Riaz – Wikipedia).
    • There was also a wrongful death lawsuit in New York (2019) naming Malik Riaz as a defendant, alleging he financed a business implicated in a fatal accident. While tangential, it shows Malik Riaz’s international business connections being legally scrutinized.
    • No known UAE court cases are public, but Bahria Town (or Malik Riaz personally) has investments in the UAE, which could attract the attention of regulators there if Pakistan requests assistance in asset freezes or if money laundering is detected through UAE banks.

Collectively, these legal precedents illustrate that courts and regulators have repeatedly recognized wrongdoing by Bahria Town, imposing fines, ordering corrective measures, and in some cases reclaiming land or money. The challenge remains to enforce these decisions fully and pursue pending cases to conclusion.

7. Mechanisms for Legal Action Against BTPL and Affiliates

Building a strong legal case against Bahria Town, Malik Riaz, Vicky Trading, Tahir Nihad (if applicable, though he’s primarily an activist), and others requires coordinated action across various forums. Below are mechanisms and forums for redress, sanctions, and corrective measures:

A. Domestic Legal Forums and Laws in Pakistan:

  • National Accountability Bureau (NAB): File formal complaints and references with NAB regarding “corruption and corrupt practices” by BTPL – including land allotment scams, bribery of officials, and cheating public investors. Under the National Accountability Ordinance, offences like fraudulent sales, illegal assets, and bribing officials are within NAB’s purview. NAB can seek to ban Malik Riaz and his businesses from future public projects and prosecute for recovery of ill-gotten gains. For instance, NAB could revive inquiries into Bahria’s land grabs (Takht Pari case evidence) (Forest land allegedly occupied by Bahria Town | eProperty®) or the money laundering trail to Vicky Trading. Given public interest, NAB could also invoke its powers to freeze assets and issue arrest warrants (which it has done in the past when Malik Riaz evaded court summons). A successful NAB prosecution could result in imprisonment and disqualification from business for Malik Riaz, along with confiscation of properties.
  • Provincial Development Authorities (RDA, CDA, LDA, SBCA): These regulators should be petitioned to enforce their own regulations:
    • RDA & CDA: They can cancel NOCs or permissions for Bahria Town phases where violations occurred, and even take over management of amenities. A legal strategy is to push RDA/CDA to exercise Section 5 of the Punjab Private Housing Schemes Rules or CDA Ordinance provisions to take control of schemes not completed per approved plan. Residents could file a writ asking the court to direct RDA/CDA to appoint an administrator for Bahria phases and facilitate forming genuine Owners’ Associations to manage the society, citing public interest and residents’ rights.
    • LDA: LDA has already listed certain Bahria projects as illegal; it can move to demolish or take possession of unapproved areas and bar further sales. Affectees can approach LDA’s tribunal or the Lahore High Court to force Bahria to compensate or adjust them in legal projects.
    • SBCA & Sindh Govt: Given the SBCA’s stance that BTK was illegal, the Sindh Government (through MDA or SBCA) could cancel Bahria’s lease or development rights for portions not paid under the SC settlement. Filing a lawsuit in SHC to compel SBCA to enforce demolition of structures violating the law (especially those beyond 6 floors or on public land) could increase pressure on BTPL to come into compliance or face consequences.
  • Electricity Regulation – NEPRA and IESCO: Since NEPRA has already declared Bahria’s power supply illegal, consumers should continue leveraging NEPRA’s complaint mechanism and the IHC case to ensure enforcement. A contempt petition could be filed if Bahria Town defies NEPRA’s 2023 order or IHC’s directives, seeking personal liability for BTPL’s management for violating regulator orders. Also, IESCO (the local utility) can be directed to physically take over the distribution infrastructure in Bahria Town – possibly with help from local administration. The Electricity Act (PEC Act) could be invoked against Bahria if they continue distribution – treating it as theft or unlawful interference in the grid.
  • Judiciary (High Courts & Supreme Court): Residents and public interest litigants can file:
    • Constitutional Petitions (High Courts): Under Article 199 of the Constitution, citing violation of fundamental rights (e.g., Article 9 – right to life, Article 24 – property rights, Article 25 – equality before law), petitioners can seek High Court orders to restrain Bahria’s illegal acts. For example, a petition to enforce residents’ rights to a fair tariff (as done in IHC), or to challenge Bahria’s private enforcement actions (disconnecting utilities, encroaching land) as violations of law.
    • Public Interest Litigation (Supreme Court): The Supreme Court can be moved under Article 184(3) for matters of public importance. A comprehensive petition could compile all illegalities – land grabbing, money laundering, non-payment of taxes, etc. – urging the SC to ban BTPL’s operations unless they comply with all laws. Given past SC interest in Bahria Town cases, this could potentially yield a suo motu action or at least a hearing where government agencies are directed to act in concert.
    • Civil Suits & Consumer Courts: Affectees (e.g., those who paid for plots never delivered, or were overbilled) can file civil suits for damages and recovery. Under consumer protection laws, Bahria’s misrepresentation (like false promises of amenities or NOC status) can be challenged. While these may be lengthy, a few high-profile damages awards could deter BTPL’s fraudulent conduct.
  • Federal Investigation Agency (FIA): For aspects like money laundering that involve cross-border transactions, the FIA’s Anti-Corruption Circle and AML Directorate can be engaged. The Vicky Trading case might involve foreign transfers, so FIA, as the INTERPOL liaison, can help trace funds or coordinate with foreign agencies. Complaints under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (for fake online ads, etc.) are also possible if Bahria disseminated false info through electronic means.
  • Securities & Exchange Commission (SECP): If any Bahria affiliate (like Bahria’s financial arm or listed companies) violated company laws (e.g., by not maintaining proper accounts, or if Bahria Town is offering unregistered investment schemes), SECP could investigate and sanction directors.

B. Transferring BTPL’s Management to Owners’ Associations:
A key demand is to remove Bahria management and empower homeowners:

  • Legally, once a housing project is completed and plots handed over, the developer should form an Owners’ Association or Society under local laws (e.g., Cooperative Societies Act or specific condominium/property acts) to manage common areas. Bahria Town has resisted this, maintaining control to profit from services.
  • Owners can invoke contract law and specific performance: if Bahria’s marketing promised self-governance or if by custom the management must transfer after a period, a court can order BTPL to facilitate elections of a residents’ governing body.
  • The Government can also legislate or use existing law (in some jurisdictions, e.g., Sindh has the Sindh Cooperative Housing Authority) to mandate that private housing schemes after sale of all plots must transfer management to an elected body of residents. A petition to provincial assemblies or housing departments could push this.
  • Until then, residents’ associations like BRACE should formally register and claim representation. They can then negotiate with regulators to install resident-led management. For example, if NEPRA/IESCO takes over electricity, a residents’ committee could oversee local distribution issues – limiting BTPL’s involvement.
  • Courts have, in cases of failed housing schemes, appointed independent administrators. Residents can request the court to appoint an administrator for Bahria Town (especially if Malik Riaz’s operations are injuncted due to legal violations). This would effectively put management in neutral hands and prepare for owner-association governance.

C. Banning Operations and Seeking Sanctions (Pakistan & UAE):

  • Domestically, blacklisting BTPL and Malik Riaz from new projects can be pursued. The State Bank and FBR, through AML/CFT regulations, could designate BTPL as a high-risk entity, requiring financial institutions to monitor or restrict its transactions.
  • The Securities regulators can ban Malik Riaz and his family from being directors of any company if found guilty of fraud. In fact, under Section 172 of the Companies Act 2017, if a person is found to have been involved in fraudulent activities, SECP can disqualify them from company management.
  • Internationally, Pakistan can request the UAE (where Malik Riaz reportedly has assets and possibly businesses) to assist under the UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) – both Pakistan and UAE are signatories. UNCAC’s asset recovery provisions could be used to identify and repatriate Bahria’s illicit funds parked in Dubai or elsewhere.
  • International Sanctions: Activists can lobby for global Magnitsky-style sanctions on Malik Riaz and BTPL for corruption and human rights abuses. For instance, approaching the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) or the UK Foreign Office with dossiers of evidence (the UK NCA case, the human rights violations in Karachi ([ Pakistan: Villagers protesting evictions and Bahria Town luxury estate expansion met with violence and arrests – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre ](https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/pakistan-villagers-protesting-evictions-and-bahria-town-luxury-estate-expansion-met-with-violence-and-arrests/#:~:text=bulldozers%20returned%20on%207%20May,be%20in%20future%2C%E2%80%9D%20he%20tweeted)), etc.) could trigger visa bans or asset freezes under sanctions regimes targeting corrupt actors. The recent precedent of the US placing sanctions on individuals for serious corruption (from other countries) shows this is plausible if evidence is compelling.
  • The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) framework could also be relevant: ensuring Pakistani authorities fully investigate BTPL’s money laundering helps Pakistan’s compliance. If BTPL’s laundering network spans UAE or UK, those jurisdictions’ enforcement (like the NCA) can be activated. In the UAE, filing a complaint with the Dubai Financial Services Authority or the UAE Central Bank’s Financial Intelligence Unit about Malik Riaz’s funds might start an inquiry (especially since UAE is sensitive to money laundering issues).
  • Asset Freezes & Repatriation: Using mutual legal assistance treaties, Pakistani agencies (NAB/FIA) could seek to freeze properties owned by Malik Riaz abroad (e.g., luxury villas or investments in Gulf countries) on the basis of ongoing corruption cases. The £50 million Hyde Park property in London was already seized; similar actions can be pursued for any known foreign holdings.

D. Filing Complaints & Lawsuits in UAE:
If Bahria Town or Malik Riaz has business registered in the UAE (for example, reports have mentioned Bahria Town ventures in Dubai/Abu Dhabi), affected Pakistani citizens can file complaints with UAE authorities. The UAE has strict anti-fraud laws and if, say, Bahria marketed projects to overseas Pakistanis that turned out fraudulent, victims might file a case in UAE courts for misrepresentation. While challenging, a criminal complaint in UAE for laundering (if money trail goes through UAE banks) could complement Pakistani efforts. The goal would be to get UAE to revoke any permissions for Bahria business and to seize accounts used for laundering. Cooperation through INTERPOL Red Notices for Malik Riaz (if he is declared an absconder in any case, NAB could do this) would restrict his international movement.

E. Engaging International Anti-Corruption Frameworks:
Engage organizations like Transparency International to put Bahria Town on the radar in forums like the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention review (since bribery of officials is alleged). Also, approach the UN Human Rights Council or NGOs regarding the Karachi evictions as a case of corporate human rights abuse, to build moral pressure for action.

Summary of Desired Outcomes:
Through these mechanisms, the aim is to:

  • Cease BTPL’s illegal operations (electricity distribution, unapproved construction, etc.) immediately through injunctions and regulator enforcement.
  • Recover stolen land and public resources (via CDA/RDA reclaiming encroached land, SC-mandated payments, NAB asset recovery).
  • Punish the perpetrators – ensure Malik Riaz, his associates (including any colluding officials), and entities like Vicky Trading face legal consequences (fines, jail, disqualification).
  • Protect consumers by restructuring Bahria Town management – handing control to legitimate Owners’ Associations and integrating services with public utilities (so residents are no longer hostages to a private company for basic needs).
  • Set legal precedents that deter other developers from similar misconduct.

8. Electricity & Maintenance Charges Fraud by Bahria Town

One of the clearest illustrations of Bahria’s unlawful practices is its handling of electricity and maintenance in its communities:

  • Illegal Electricity Distribution: Bahria Town operated a private power distribution network for years without a valid license (2002-2010). Even after getting a temporary license (2010-2020) and its subsequent revocation in 2020, Bahria kept acting as the power provider. This means Bahria was buying bulk electricity from the national grid (through IESCO or K-Electric) and reselling to residents at higher tariffs, which is illegal after its license was canceled. By not transferring customers back to the state utility, Bahria contravened NEPRA’s orders. Essentially, every electricity bill issued by BTPL post-October 2020 is an unauthorized charge. The company also failed to implement net-metering credits for those with solar panels, denying them rightful reductions in bills. NEPRA’s April 2023 decision affirmed that Bahria cannot bill consumers and instructed IESCO to take over, yet Bahria’s persistence led residents to go to IHC. Overbilling was rampant – residents were charged up to Rs. 4 to Rs. 15.66 more per unit than NEPRA-approved rates, plus arbitrary “adjustments”. This amounts to profiteering and possibly fraud. Under the Electricity Act and NEPRA regulations, any entity charging above notified tariffs or without a license is liable for penalties and criminal prosecution. Residents have justifiable claims to recover overpaid amounts as unjust enrichment by BTPL.
  • Maintenance Charges and Infrastructure Fees: Bahria Town imposes monthly maintenance fees on residents ostensibly for upkeep of parks, security, road cleaning, etc. However, these charges are often unregulated and non-transparent. Residents in different Bahria phases have reported sudden hikes in maintenance fees without consultation – a direct violation of consumer rights and, in some cases, of the terms in the buyer’s agreement. Moreover, Bahria sometimes links provision of utilities to payment of these fees, effectively coercing residents. In one instance, Bahria was accused of charging an “advance tax” on maintenance and services that it wasn’t authorized to collect (only FBR can levy taxes). Such practices could be challenged under provincial apartment ownership laws or consumer protection acts, as unfair trade practices.
    Additionally, Bahria collected development charges for promised infrastructure (e.g., sector shops, playgrounds) that in some cases were never built or were delayed. This is a form of fraud if the funds weren’t utilized as intended. The lack of independent audit of Bahria’s maintenance fund is problematic – residents don’t get a breakdown of where their money goes. If BTPL’s financial statements (to the extent they’re published) do not account for these monies properly, that’s an auditing and possibly tax issue.
  • Unauthorised “Taxes” and Fees: Bahria also at times charged fees labeled like “processing fee, meter installation fee, security deposit” at rates higher than public utilities would charge. For example, if a new connection in a public system costs Rs. X, Bahria might charge several times X. The excess lacks legal basis. The company’s attempt to act as a municipal authority – collecting charges for water, sewage, garbage – without oversight, can be interpreted as usurpation of local government functions. Under the Constitution, only the State can levy taxes; thus Bahria’s monetary exactions beyond contractual maintenance could be illegal. The IHC petition highlights that Bahria turned basic utilities into “a source of revenue” for itself, which the court saw as potentially violating fundamental rights.
  • Non-Transparent Accounting: The crux of the fraud is that residents have no way to verify if the money they pay for maintenance or utilities is actually spent on those services. In fact, evidence suggests it is not – e.g., despite charging for power at high rates, Bahria did not invest in network upgrades or reducing losses, since they were never licensed to run a utility beyond 2020. Similarly, maintenance in some areas deteriorated even as fees increased, implying funds might be diverted. This lack of transparency could violate provisions of the Companies Act 2017 regarding misuse of customer advances or could be prosecutable as criminal breach of trust if maintenance funds are misappropriated.

Legal Recourse for Residents:
Residents have begun to fight back:

  • The IHC case (Tahir Nihad vs. Bahria) seeks relief from illegal electricity charges. Success in that case should compel IESCO to directly bill residents at proper rates and cease Bahria’s billing – effectively ending the electricity overcharge scheme.
  • For maintenance charges, residents could form a legal association to audit Bahria’s use of funds. Under contract law, if Bahria fails to deliver promised maintenance, residents might escale the matter to a civil court or ombudsman for fee reduction or escrow of fees until services are satisfactory. Another approach is lobbying the local government to take over municipal services in Bahria Town (though Bahria often resists, citing private status).
  • The Competition Commission could also examine whether Bahria’s bundling of services (forcing people to use its electricity and maintenance) is an abuse of dominance in the “market for gated community services.” As noted, CCP fined Bahria for telecom exclusion; similarly, an inquiry could be made for electricity and maintenance tie-in, which denies consumers choice and exploits them.
  • On the criminal side, FIA Cyber Crime might look at fraudulent billing software or police could be approached for FIRs for extortion if Bahria cut off essential services to extract payment – a tactic arguably falling under Pakistan Penal Code sections for criminal intimidation or extortion.

In conclusion, Bahria’s way of charging for electricity and maintenance illustrates a microcosm of its wider modus operandi: acting above the law to maximize profit. Addressing this through legal channels not only gives residents immediate relief but also sets the stage for reforming how private housing societies are regulated in Pakistan.

9. Building a Strong Legal Case – Applicable Laws & References

To transform the above findings into a robust legal case, one must align each illegality with specific laws and provisions, and use evidence to back claims. Below are key legal bases for action:

  • Constitution of Pakistan: Article 4 guarantees that everyone shall be dealt with in accordance with law – Bahria’s arbitrary actions violate this. Article 24 (property rights) is violated by land grabbing and by Bahria’s retaliatory destruction of property (digging roads, etc.). Article 9 (right to life) is invoked in the context of essential services like electricity – courts have held that denial of basic utilities can engage the right to life. Article 18 (freedom of trade) was violated when Bahria restricted other service providers (like Nayatel). These constitutional points can be raised in Superior Courts.
  • Land Laws & Regulations: Bahria’s encroachments violate the Forest Act 1927 (in Takht Pari, removing forest without permission is an offense) (Forest land allegedly occupied by Bahria Town | eProperty®) (Forest land allegedly occupied by Bahria Town | eProperty®). They also breach local development authority laws: e.g., CDA Ordinance 1960 Section 49C (encroachment on acquired land is illegal and removable); Punjab Private Housing Schemes Rules 2010 (selling plots without NOC is banned). Under these laws, the penalty can include demolition of illegal structures and even imprisonment/fines for developers who sell plots illegally. The Supreme Court’s enforcement of these in Bahria’s case (e.g., ordering demolitions or payment in lieu) provides supporting precedent.
  • Criminal Law: Sections of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) may apply: e.g., Section 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) for selling fraudulent plots or demanding illegal fees; Section 406 (criminal breach of trust) if maintenance funds were misused; Section 447 (criminal trespass) for encroaching on government land; Section 506 (criminal intimidation) if threats or coercion were used against protestors or residents. FIA’s involvement could bring in the Prevention of Corruption Act if public officials were bribed. The evidence of hostage-taking of forest officials (Forest land allegedly occupied by Bahria Town | eProperty®) is grave – that could be charged as wrongful confinement or assault on public servants under PPC.
  • Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Corruption Laws: The Anti-Money Laundering Act 2010 is central to the Vicky Trading case. It criminalizes laundering of proceeds of crime, which FBR is pursuing (Trading company linked with Malik Riaz’s Bahria Town under Investigation for ‘money laundering’ – Pakistan Observer). If Bahria Town’s funds are proven to originate from crimes (e.g., tax evasion or fraud), AMLA can lead to convictions of company directors and heavy fines. The National Accountability Ordinance 1999 covers “corruption and corrupt practices” broadly – including bribery, misappropriation of property, and cheating public stakeholders – all of which appear in BTPL’s conduct. NAB can use this law to prosecute Malik Riaz for land scams and kickbacks; conviction can result in up to 14 years imprisonment and confiscation of assets, plus making him ineligible to hold public office or bank loans. Given Malik Riaz’s public profile, a NAB reference would send a strong message.
  • Sectoral Regulatory Laws: Bahria’s unauthorized power supply violates the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act 1997 (NEPRA Act). Specifically, Section 21 (licensing) and Section 28 (penalties for unlicensed activity) come into play. NEPRA can impose fines for each day of violation and even recommend federal government action. For building control, Bahria’s actions breach the Sindh Building Control Ordinance 1979 – constructing without approved plans is punishable by fines/demolition. The Punjab Development of Cities Act similarly would apply in Lahore for any construction outside approved plans. The Companies Act 2017 could be used if BTPL’s filings are false (misreporting liabilities or pending cases could be an offense under sections dealing with fraud by officers of a company).
  • Consumer Protection Laws: Each province has consumer protection statutes (for example, Islamabad Consumer Protection Act 1995, Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005) which prohibit unfair trade practices. Selling plots in an illegal scheme or advertising amenities that were never delivered can be deemed unfair or fraudulent under these laws. Consumers (allottees) could seek redress through consumer courts, which might award compensation or orders to fulfill promises. While smaller in scope, it adds pressure and creates public record of Bahria’s failings.
  • International Law and Treaties: Pakistan can reference the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), which mandates international cooperation in recovering assets and prosecuting corruption. Malik Riaz’s case was one of the largest asset recovery instances for Pakistan (the £190M UK settlement) – citing that success, Pakistan can push for further cooperation. If approaching foreign courts or governments, allegations of money laundering can invoke laws like the UK Proceeds of Crime Act (which was used by NCA) or the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (if any US-linked transactions or if any US person was bribed; not obvious here, but any international nexus could be explored).

By aligning evidence to these laws, a comprehensive legal brief can be prepared. For example, attach Dawn news reports and court documents as exhibits to show factual basis: the Dawn report confirming SBCA’s statements of illegality can support a claim of violation of building laws; the Pakistan Observer/Profit pieces on Vicky Trading (Trading company linked with Malik Riaz’s Bahria Town under Investigation for ‘money laundering’ – Pakistan Observer) support money laundering charges; the IHC interim order text supports the claim of fundamental rights violation via electricity issues. Each citation (as included here in 【 】) would correspond to an annex or piece of evidence in the legal case.

10. Actionable Recommendations for Legal Action and Consumer Protection

Based on the above findings, the following steps are recommended to build and enforce a case against Bahria Town and protect consumers:

1. Consolidate Evidence and File a Mega Petition: Form a coalition of affectees (residents, evicted villagers, allottees awaiting plots) and file a comprehensive petition in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. This petition should detail Bahria Town’s illegal acts with evidence and request the Court to:

  • Enforce all outstanding orders (e.g., completion of ₨460B payment, removal of encroachments, transfer of billing to IESCO).
  • Appoint a Judicial Commission to investigate Bahria Town’s dealings across Pakistan – including land acquisitions, money trails, and regulatory compliance. Such a commission can audit BTPL’s projects and propose reforms.
  • Suspend further sales/launches by BTPL until the investigation is complete (to prevent new victims).
  • Direct government regulators to coordinate actions so Bahria Town cannot play one authority against another. For instance, ensure RDA, CDA, LDA all publish clear legal status of Bahria projects on their websites to inform the public.
    This “mega case” approach, under SC’s umbrella, would unify various threads and keep Malik Riaz from evading issues piecemeal. The SC’s past involvement (e.g., the Karachi case) sets a precedent for taking up such matters of public importance.

2. Leverage NAB for Criminal Accountability: Encourage NAB to actively pursue pending cases and new ones:

  • Residents and whistleblowers should formally lodge complaints with detailed evidence (NAB has forms for housing society fraud complaints).
  • NAB should be pressed (via media and political oversight) to conclude inquiries and file references in accountability courts. Particularly, NAB should target the “assets beyond means” angle – if Malik Riaz’s known income doesn’t justify his wealth, NAB can charge him and seek to confiscate unexplained assets.
  • A NAB reference could also name public officials who facilitated Bahria’s illegal acts (e.g., revenue officials in Rawalpindi who were complicit (Forest land allegedly occupied by Bahria Town | eProperty®)). This would address the network of complicity.
  • Ensure NAB coordinates with FBR and FIA on the money laundering aspects so that Vicky Trading’s case and any benami properties are wrapped into the corruption case.
    Goal: secure convictions or at least plea bargains that recover money and bar Malik Riaz from future projects.

3. Resident Empowerment and Takeover of Management:

  • Formally register Owners’ Associations in all Bahria Town phases (where not already present) under relevant laws (e.g., Societies Registration Act). This gives residents legal standing as a collective. BRACE could help federate these associations.
  • Initiate legal action to take over community management: for example, in Bahria Town Rawalpindi, use the RDA regulations which often require developers to hand over maintenance to local authorities or societies after completion. If Bahria Town is “completed” on paper, residents can argue BTPL has no right to continue charging fees and should hand over assets (e.g., maintenance equipment, community centers) to the association.
  • Lobby the provincial governments to enact a Gated Communities Act that mandates democratic governance of such societies. Until then, an interim step is requesting the courts or government to appoint a neutral administrator (perhaps the local Deputy Commissioner or a reputable estate manager) to oversee Bahria Town services, with residents’ committee input, ousting BTPL’s private management at least temporarily. This was hinted at by RDA’s stance of increasing oversight.
  • Educate and mobilize residents to participate: For example, boycott unauthorized charges (as was done in Phase-8 Rawalpindi) to pressure BTPL financially, while depositing the due amount in a judicial or escrow account to show willingness to pay if legally justified. This protects residents from being labeled defaulters while denying Bahria illicit income.

4. International Action – Freezing and Repatriating Assets:

  • Pursue the UK and other jurisdictions for further asset freezes. The 2019 NCA case (Malik Riaz – Wikipedia) was just one piece; if evidence of more UK assets emerges, UK authorities could act. Similarly, identify any properties in Dubai or elsewhere: work with agencies to freeze them. Pakistan’s government should proactively engage the Asset Recovery Unit (if still functioning) to catalog Malik Riaz’s overseas assets and seek cooperation to freeze them pending domestic proceedings.
  • Urge international sanctions: compile a dossier (including human rights abuses from June 2021 ([
Pakistan: Villagers protesting evictions and Bahria Town luxury estate expansion met with violence and arrests - Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

](https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/pakistan-villagers-protesting-evictions-and-bahria-town-luxury-estate-expansion-met-with-violence-and-arrests/#:~:text=bulldozers%20returned%20on%207%20May,be%20in%20future%2C%E2%80%9D%20he%20tweeted)) and corruption evidence like the UK settlement) and submit to authorities in the US, UK, EU. If Malik Riaz or family have travel plans or education abroad, sanctions could bite. The mere threat of losing access to foreign luxuries might force compliance or settlements.
  • In the UAE, if Bahria Town has projects (reports mention Malik Riaz had ventures in Dubai’s real estate), complain to the Dubai Real Estate Regulatory Agency (RERA). The UAE has cracked down on some developers for less; highlighting that Bahria Town money might be tainted can invoke UAE’s stringent anti-money laundering laws. Since UAE values its international reputation, a high-profile case like this could prompt them to quietly bar Malik Riaz from business there.

5. Regulatory Reforms and Enforcement:

  • NEPRA must enforce its order: if Bahria Town doesn’t hand over distribution to IESCO, NEPRA can levy daily fines and involve law enforcement to physically intervene. The IHC can supervise this process. This recommendation is partly underway due to the court case.
  • RDA, CDA, LDA should publicize lists of approved vs. illegal Bahria Town projects (as LDA did in 2024 (Beware of These Illegal Housing Societies in Lahore – September 2024 Update – Pakistan Observer)). This helps protect new buyers from falling prey. They should also set up helpdesks for Bahria affectees to file complaints.
  • Amend laws if needed: For example, increase penalties for private developers who collect money without NOC. The current fines are often too low (a few million rupees) – not a deterrent for a giant like Bahria. Advocating legislative amendments to the Building Control laws and housing scheme rules to include potential imprisonment and larger fines for repeat violators.
  • Ensure utility companies (water, electricity, gas) cannot abdicate service areas to private entities without strict regulatory oversight. The Bahria electricity saga happened partly because IESCO and NEPRA allowed a grey zone. Clarifying in law that any housing society’s utility arrangements must ultimately be under public utility control would prevent future repetition.

6. Consumer Protection Measures:

  • Establish a dedicated Housing Society Ombudsman or Tribunal at provincial levels to quickly address resident grievances (billing disputes, maintenance issues, etc.) instead of protracted court cases. Residents of Bahria could bring cases of overbilling to this body for swift relief (e.g., order refunds or rate corrections).
  • Spread awareness: Launch a public awareness campaign (possibly via media or NGOs) informing citizens of their rights regarding private housing schemes. Many buyers don’t know that a missing NOC or illegal layout can ruin their investment. An informed consumer base will avoid illegal schemes, pressuring developers to comply. Dawn’s investigative stories on Bahria Town contribute to this; more such publications and possibly a government-issued advisory can amplify the message.
  • Encourage formation of a national association of housing society residents to share information and collectively lobby for stronger laws. BRACE could network with similar bodies in other cities (there are resident groups in Karachi’s Bahria too) to form a united front.

7. Follow the Money – Reclaim Illicit Gains for Public Benefit:

  • Work with FBR to trace where the ₨319B that went into Vicky Trading ended up. If it bought assets (land, shares, etc.), move to seize those as proceeds of crime.
  • The ₨460B fine for BTK should be transparently used for public development as intended; citizens can demand the Supreme Court ensure those funds (being paid in installments) go to, say, a fund for low-cost housing or infrastructure in Karachi’s outskirts, benefiting those displaced. This turns a punishment into a restorative measure.
  • If maintenance or other charges were illegally taken, require BTPL to refund or credit those amounts to residents. Perhaps NEPRA or a court can calculate how much extra per unit was charged (e.g., if Rs15.66/unit extra, multiply by units consumed and refund to each consumer). Similarly, undeveloped amenities paid for by allottees should either be completed by BTPL under court supervision or the money returned.

By implementing these recommendations, the aim is not just to penalize wrongdoing, but to create a systemic change: a precedent that even the mightiest developers must abide by the law, and a framework that protects consumers from exploitation in the real estate sector. The Bahria Town saga, though massive in scale, can serve as the impetus for reform, rule of law, and empowerment of citizens over corrupt tycoons.

Conclusion:
Bahria Town Pvt. Ltd. under Malik Riaz has exemplified how unchecked private power can infringe laws and rights. Yet, Pakistan’s legal system – backed by active citizen engagement and media spotlight – is gradually reining it in. By drawing together the documented evidence of fraud, land theft, financial crimes, regulatory breaches, and human rights issues, stakeholders can present an unassailable case. Applying the relevant Pakistani laws and invoking international support, this case can lead to banning illicit practices, holding culprits accountable, protecting the affected thousands, and ultimately reforming the governance of housing developments. The rule of law must prevail to ensure that Bahria Town and similar entities operate within legal bounds or face dissolution, and that residents enjoy the security and rights guaranteed to them by the law of the land.

Sources: The information above is supported by credible reports and legal documents, including Supreme Court proceedings, news investigations, and official statements by regulators. Key references include: Pakistan Observer and Pakistan Today reports on the FBR’s money laundering probe into Vicky Trading (Trading company linked with Malik Riaz’s Bahria Town under Investigation for ‘money laundering’ – Pakistan Observer); Dawn News articles on resident protests and regulatory actions (RDA, CDA, SBCA); Wikipedia and Profit by Pakistan Today for Bahria Town’s history and Malik Riaz’s controversies; Aaj News and The Law Today for details of the IHC case and NEPRA’s involvement; and Business & Human Rights Resource Centre summarizing the 2021 violent evictions ([

Pakistan: Villagers protesting evictions and Bahria Town luxury estate expansion met with violence and arrests - Business & Human Rights Resource Centre


](https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/pakistan-villagers-protesting-evictions-and-bahria-town-luxury-estate-expansion-met-with-violence-and-arrests/#:~:text=bulldozers%20returned%20on%207%20May,be%20in%20future%2C%E2%80%9D%20he%20tweeted)). These and other cited sources provide a factual backbone for each claim made, ensuring that any legal filings can be well-substantiated.

Leave a Reply