Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 208/R of 1981, decided on 1st December, 1981.
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court in First. Appeal from Original Order No. 152 of 1981, dated 21st November, 1981).
--S. 17-Vesting of land in cases of emergency-Land subject to acquisition already vesting in Atomic Energy Commission and as such Commission entitled to its possession-Possession, held, cannot be avoided on ground of arrangements for resettlement of evictees having not been completed.
Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
Rashid Aziz, Addl. A: G. (Punjab) for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 1st December, 1981.
The 23 petitioners are among some 20000, persons displaced by the acquisition of about 7000 acres of land in Mianwali District for the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission in 1973-74. The formalities under the Land Acquisition Act were completed and compensation paid to the persons displaced. Possession of some of the lands so acquired has already been taken. At the direction of the Deputy Commissioner. The Land Acquisition Collector, Mianwali, issued notice dated 13-6-1981 asking the petitioners to hand over the possession of their lands and buildings situated on an area of 20 acres. The petitioners challenged the notice by a suit against the Province of Punjab and the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission for a declaration that the notice was void and for an injunction restraining the defendants from evicting them until they had been completely resettled and the matter of their compensation finally decided.
2. In the suit, the petitioners also moved an application under Order XXXIX, rule 1 for a temporary injunction. Their case was that the authorities had undertaken to resettle the displaced person's under a proper Scheme for which some 500 acres of land was to be acquired, developed and divided into plots of one Kanal each to be distributed among the displaced persons but that they were being asked by the impugned notice to move without any plot having been given to them. The District Judge who was trying the suit, was of the view that "after the completion of the acquisition proceedings the land and all the appurtenances thereupon vest in the Commission which is only liable to pay the compensation there fore, that "the Commission on its own never agreed to any particular place for the resettlement of the evictees" and that "the promise and the under taking made and held out by the Provincial. Government are not binding upon the Commission". He. therefore, dismissed the application on 30-7-1981. The petitioners' appeal before the High Court failed for similar reasons on 21-11-1981. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. After the preliminary hearing on 29-11-1981 we sent for the Law Officer of the Provincial Government. Mr. Rashid Aziz, Additional Advocate General has accordingly appeared and has furnished a copy of the affidavit dated 15-11-1981 of the Project Director of the Commission submitted in the High Court. It appears from this affidavit that in lieu of 65 acres of land acquired from the petitioners, they were given 345 acres. In regard to the resettlement of the evictees, it has been stated in the affidavit that a Co-operative Society has been formed which is purchasing land on its own accord for residential purposes and that the Society has been negotiating with the Commission for facilities of public utility such as dispensary and mosque which had from the very beginning been promised by the latter, The assertions in the affidavit are, however, being orally controverted before us.
4. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the land subject to the acquisition has already vested in the Commission and as such that organization is entitled to its possession, which cannot, prima facie, be avoided on the ground that arrangement for resettlement of the evictees is not completed. The view taken by the Courts below is, therefore, not open to exception. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioners and as agreed to by learned Additional Advocate-General we direct that the petitioners be allowed two months time to vacate the property. With this direction the petition is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer