Encroachments Are Not Entitlements

2026-03-13 - 22:03

Abdullah Umar Recent debate surrounding eviction notices issued by the Capital Development Authority (CDA) to residents of Rimsha and Akram Gill Colonies in Islamabad has once again revived a familiar narrative: that the state is obligated to provide alternative housing whenever illegal settlements on public land are removed. This framing overlooks a fundamental principle of governance and urban planning. Public land exists for public purposes. In Islamabad, it is administered under a regulated planning framework by the CDA. Any construction or settlement on state land without legal authorization constitutes encroachment. When authorities act to reclaim such land, they are not violating rights but enforcing the law and protecting assets that belong to the public at large. The argument that eviction must be halted until alternative housing is guaranteed creates a problematic precedent. If unlawful occupation of public land automatically triggered a state obligation to provide housing, it would effectively incentivize further encroachments. Cities cannot function if informal occupation of land is allowed to transform into a permanent entitlement through protest or pressure. Humanitarian considerations are important and governments should continue to pursue broader housing and welfare policies for low-income citizens. However, social welfare initiatives are policy decisions aimed at the wider population; they cannot become automatic legal obligations arising from illegal occupation of land. Similarly, the longevity of settlements or the presence of utilities does not convert an encroachment into a legal property right. Administrative tolerance over time cannot replace formal legality. Across Pakistan, many temporary arrangements have gradually been misinterpreted as permanent recognition, creating expectations that the law never actually granted. Recent criticism by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), which has urged the government to halt evictions and ensure resettlement before any action is taken, reflects a humanitarian concern but rests on a weak legal and logical foundation. A judicial stay on summary eviction procedures cannot be interpreted as a permanent right to occupy public land indefinitely. Nor does it impose a blanket obligation on the state to provide housing before reclaiming illegally occupied property. Public policy cannot operate on the assumption that illegal encroachment automatically generates state liability for resettlement. Such a principle would effectively convert unlawful occupation into a pathway for acquiring land, undermining urban governance and encouraging the proliferation of informal settlements. The issue extends far beyond Islamabad. Across Pakistan, illegal constructions frequently emerge along riverbanks, nullahs, and flood plains. These encroachments create serious challenges during natural disasters. When floods occur, authorities must evacuate residents from hazardous areas and later face intense pressure to compensate or rehabilitate those living in places that were never meant for habitation in the first place. With climate change expected to increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events in Pakistan, such settlements are becoming even more dangerous. Flood plains and drainage channels must remain unobstructed to manage water flow and protect cities. Encroachments in these zones not only endanger the occupants themselves but also worsen flooding for surrounding communities by blocking natural drainage paths. Urban encroachment therefore is not merely a legal or administrative issue; it is increasingly a matter of public safety and climate resilience. Allowing illegal settlements to expand unchecked can place thousands of vulnerable families directly in harm’s way while also increasing the burden on the state during emergencies. Pakistan’s urban housing challenge is real. Rapid population growth and migration have placed enormous pressure on cities. The solution, however, lies in long-term housing policy, affordable housing schemes, and planned development – not in normalizing illegal occupation of public land. Compassion must guide governance, but it cannot replace legality. Public land belongs to the public, and the rule of law requires that it be protected. Turning encroachment into entitlement may appear sympathetic in the short term, but it ultimately weakens institutions, undermines urban planning, and creates greater risks for the very communities it seeks to defend.