Find a Lawyer

----S. 2(1)(e)--Housing Scheme--Acquired land, utilization of--Land acquired for Housing Scheme also utilized for providing facilities of school, park, dispensary, offices of public utility service, Police posts etc.--Such utilization, held, could not be termed as utilization for purposes other than that of Housing Scheme.

The Murree Brewery Co. Ltd. v. Pakistan through the Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Works Division P L D 1972 S C 279 ref.

---Ss. 4 & 6--Housing Scheme--Acquisition of land--Owner whose land was acquired for Housing Scheme having no grievance in respect of award of compensation of land acquired or any complaint in respect of measurement of land made by Collector--No prejudice, held, was caused to owner even if her plea that she was not heard was accepted and acquisition could not be held to be unauthorised, illegal or invalid in law in circumstances.

Ali Ahmed Awan for Petitioner.

M. Sultan Alam for Respondents.

Saeed-un-Nisa petitioner by. invoking the constitutional jurisdiction has called into question notification of acquisition, dated the 4th May, 1980 published on 20th of May, 1980 the proceedings of acquisition held by the Collector and the award, dated 5-9-1984.

2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the land measuring 120 Kanals belonging to the petitioner was acquired for the purpose of a Housing Colony under the provisions of the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act of 1973. The grievance of the petitioner is that for the purpose of Development the Multan Development Authority (hereinafter called the Authority) was required to make and draw a Development plan but instead of making a master plan and getting the same approved from the Government the Authority has adopted and approved the master plan prepared by the Department of Housing and Physical Planning, vide notification, dated 15-12-1980. It is further alleged that though as per the aforesaid notification the Authority is bound by the terms and conditions of the aforesaid notification and any variation, modification, change, amendment or relaxation of the terms of the master plan can be made and effected only with the prior approval of the Government of Punjab. It was maintained that as per contents to the master plan the land of the petitioner falls in the area reserved for institutions-cum-offices and commercial area and that in and around the said land, streets, green belt and residential houses were planned to be constructed. It was argued on the above premises that the land of the petitioner is not being used for "housing purposes". The acquisition of the land for a purpose other than the one contemplated in the master plan is unauthorised and illegal. In support of this contention, the Murree Brewery Co. Ltd. v. Pakistan through the Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Works Division P L D 1972 S C 279 was cited. In this case it was held:-

"The contention that the C.D.A. has unlimited and undefined power to acquire all land within the Specified Areas was not acceptable. Any acquisition within these areas must have a reasonable reference to the purpose of the Ordinance and must be carried out strictly in accordance with its provisions.

Where, therefore, in the Master Plan the site where the disputed property stood had been shown as earmarked for 'Open Space', acquiring the disputed property "for providing suitable accommodation" for the more efficient functioning of the President's Secretariat" was held not only to be outside the purpose of the Ordinance and the function of the C.D.A. but also not covered by any scheme framed under the Ordinance. Merely putting a label on the acquisition that this is "for the construction of the Capital, Islamabad" will not automatically make it an acquisition for the purpose of the Ordinance. Nor does it shut out a Court of law from inquiring into the real purpose of the acquisition."

I have examined a copy of the master plan as well as the survey plant prepared by the Authority. In the comments submitted by the Authority both the above noted pleas of the petitioner have been controverted. The case of the Authority is that the master plan is being followed strictly and that the land of the petitioner is not being diverted to any other use. According to the representative of the Authority the land of the petitioner falls in sector 6 which is a residential unit and the land comprised in different Khasra numbers and owned by the petitioner comes under the residential area and not under the area where the District Centre is proposed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if actual measurement is carried out at the spot the land belonging to the petitioner would fall under the District Centre. Learned counsel explained that in each sector some land has been reserved and earmarked for District Centre which means a Centre where facilities of schools, parks, dispensary, offices of public utility services or police post are intended to be provided and even assuming that the land of the petitioner falls under the District Centre it cannot be urged that any deviation is being made from the master plan or that the area of the petitioner is being diverted to some unauthorised use. I have considered the respective pleas of the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not referred to any provision of law to show that the master plan prepared by the Department of Housing and Physical Planning, Government of Punjab, could not be legally adopted by the Authority or that it was required under law to prepare on its own any master plan. It is the case of the petitioner herself that the master plan as adopted was approved by the Governor. The other plea that the master plan shows the land in question to have been earmarked and reserved for institutions, offices and commercial area has been disputed and controverted by the Authority. There is nothing on record to support this version of the petitioner. Be that as it may, assuming that the land of the petitioner falls under the District Centre even then it cannot be said that the land is not required or is not being utilized for purposes of housing scheme. The housing scheme has been defined by section 2(2) of the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called as the said Act) as under:-

(1) a scheme which provides for residential sites, houses or apartments including ancillary land uses such as;

(i) building and other facilities for health, education recreation, culture, transportation, communication and shopping;

(ii) environmental improvements; and

(iii) utility services, i.e. to say water supply, drainage, sewerage, sanitation, electricity and fuel.

It is, therefore, apparent that utilization of land for providing facilities of schools, parks, dispensary, offices of public utility services, police post etc. cannot be termed as utilization for purposes other than that of housing scheme. I am, therefore, of the considered view that neither the land is being diverted to any unauthorised use nor the provision made in the master plan is being modified, varied or changed no there is any violation of the undertaking given by the Authority.

3. The next plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner was not heard by the Collector before making the award. It was also urged that the notice required to be given by the Collector under section 4 of the said Act was given much after the issuance of the special notice required to be given under section 6(1) of the said Act. The notification of acquisition by the Deputy Commissioner under section 4 was published on 20th of May, 1980 and according to the learned counsel notice under section 6(1) was given on 8-2-1984 but the second notice provided by section 4 to be given by the Collector was given on 11-6-1984 as mentioned in the award of the Collector.

Learned counsel for the Authority stated that the mention of the date of notice as 11-6-1984 in the award is incorrect and is the result of a typing mistake as this notice was given on 11-6-1980 as is apparent from the special notice given by the Collector and that this notice was given in the year 1980. Learned counsel argued that as the petitioner was not heard by the Collector and as second notice under section 4 of the said Act was issued by the Collector subsequent to the issuance of the notice under section 6(1) of the said Act the acquisition proceedings stand vitiated and as such the land of the petitioner cannot legally be acquired. Firstly, the date of notice as stated by the learned counsel is disputed by the Authority by reference to the record maintained by it. Secondly, the learned counsel was not able to show that the Collector had any authority to exempt any land from the acquisition under the provisions of the said Act. The Collector under the provisions of this Statute has only to make measurement of the land, assess its value an apportion the compensation payable to the land-owners. It was not the grievance of the petitioner that she was not awarded the compensation or that she has been awarded compensation less than her entitlement or that she had any complaint on account of the measurement made by the Collector. This being the position no prejudice was caused even if the plea that the petitioner was not heard is accepted. Moreover she can avail of the remedy of appeal provided by the aforesaid Act against the order passed and the award made by the Collector. On none of these grounds the acquisition can be held to be unauthorised, illegal or invalid in law.

4. It was then urged that Shah Shamas Housing Scheme was approved by the Authority itself and as the sanction of the said scheme was not obtained from the Government, the Authority had no legal authority to implement the so-called scheme. This point has not been taken in the petition. However, I have considered this plea and I have no hesitation in repelling the same for the reasons recorded in the connected writ petitions No. 23 of 1985 and 80 of 1985. No other point was urged.

5. For the reasons given above I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.