Find a Lawyer

MESSRS EDEN DEVELOPERS (PVT.) LIMITED versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB

ection Section 4 - Notice - Objects, Scope and Purpose Land to be notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is merely an initial step, which is temporary in nature and lays the groundwork for subsequent action to be achieved. - The public is thus cautioned that any transaction / subsequent separation will be at risk and cost to the parties concerned such The purpose of this notice is to carry out a preliminary inquiry to determine if the land is a public purpose. Required or otherwise - The Government expressly expresses its fundamental commitment to acquire the land through this notification for public purposes, which is the Government's final And the final decision cannot be considered, but it is a precautionary notice / warning to the public, [p 448] B

PLD 2017 Lahore 442

Before Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, J

Messrs EDEN DEVELOPERS (PVT.) LIMITED—Petitioner 

versus

GOVERNMENT oF THE PUNJAB and othersr-Respondents

Writ Petition No.24493 of 2012, heard on 12th January, 2017.

(a) Maxim—

—“Salus poluli suprema lex”—Meaning—Interests of public are supreme and private interests are subordinate to the interest of State. [p. 448] A

(b) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)—

—S. 4—Notification—Object, scope and purpose—Notification under S.4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is merely an introductory measure, tentative in nature and furnishes foundation of subsequent proceeding for acquisition—Such is a caution to public that any transaction/alienation made subsequent would be at the risk and cost of respective parties—Purpose of such notification is to carry on preliminary investigation to find out whether the land is required for public purpose or otherwise—Government through such notification expresses its tentative primary intention to acquire land for public purposes which cannot be considered as conclusive and ultimate decision of government rather it is a precautionary notice/warning to public at large, [p. 448] B

Muhammad Ashiq and another v. Water and Manpower Development Authority, Lahore through Chairman, WAPDA House and another PLD 2008 SC 335 rel.

(c) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)—

—S. 4(1)—Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 24 & 199—Constitutional petition— uPublic purpose”— Determination—Judicial review—

Scope—Acquisition for company—Principle—Land owners assailed notification issued under S. 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on the plea that acquisition in favour of private limited company was not for public purpose, resultantly the notification was withdrawn—Validity— Acquisition of land in favour of a company for welfare of public at large was permissible—Determining factor of “public purpose” fell' exclusively within the domain of government which was the adjudicating and arbitral forum of the same—Government had to define public purpose scrutinizing scrupulously request for acquisition of land by requiring company—Government had to evaluate public purpose objectively on the basis of reasonable material as sacred Fundamental Right of individual duly safeguarded under the provision of Art.24 of the Constitution was likely to be affected—Such determination of “public purpose ” was also justiciable and amenable to judicial review by courts—No mala fide on the part of government or Board of Revenue was established—Petitioner company was intending to set up a private housing scheme under garb of acquisition which purpose could not be equated in any manner with “public purpose”—

De-acquisition proceedings were initiated on the application of land owners who were necessary parties as their rights/interest were directly involved in the matter and despite having knowledge, petition did not implead them as party in petition, whose land was going to be acquired compulsorily—Non-impleading of necessary parties in petition minimized maintainability of petition—Petitioner failed to point out any illegality or material irregularity or any violation of acquisition laws in the order passed by authorities and also there was no jurisdictional defect—Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. [pp. 449, 454, 457] C, D & E

Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edn.; Muhammad Saqib Abbasi v. Province of Punjab through Secretary Local Government, Lahore and 2 others 2013 CLC 158; Federal Government Employees’ Housing Foundation through Director-General, Islamabad and another v. Muhammad Akram Alizai, Deputy Controller, PBC, Islamabad 2002 PLC (CS) 1655; Messrs Dewan Salman Fiber Limited and others v. Government of N.-W.F.P., through Secretary, Revenue Department, Peshawar and others PLD 2004 SC 441; National Police Foundation Corporation Housing Society Limited, Islamabad v. Board of Revenue, Government of Punjab and 2 others PLD 1984 Lah. 191; Radba Kanta Banik v. The Province of East Pakistan and 2 others PLD 1969 SC 545; Muhammad Ishaq and another v. Collector, Lahore District Lahore and others 2000 YLR 1074; Mst. Maqbool Begum and others v. Gullan and others PLD 1982 SC 46; Akhtar Ali Khan and another v. Settlement Commissioner, Peshawar and 4 others 1989 SCMR 506 and Muhammad Suleman v. Abdul Rashid and 13 others PLD 1987 Lah. 387 rel.

Muhammad Shahzad Shaukat for Petitioner.

Muhammad Hammad Khan Rai, A.A.G, for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 12th January, 2017.

immigration advocate from Kamokey lawyer