Find a Lawyer

(On appeal from the judgment dated 1‑11‑1981 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in R. S. A. No. 804 of 1980.)

Municipal Administration Ordinance (X of 1960)--‑

----Ss. 74 & 75‑Punjab Municipal Act (I of 1911), S. 192‑Punjab Town Improvement Act (IV of 1922), Ss. 49, 24, 28, 36 & 2(7)-- Private Housing Scheme approved by Authority under S. 75, Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960‑Development Authority is not debarred from framing a Development Scheme under S. 24, Town Improvement Act, 1922, in respect of any area in which a Site Development Scheme framed under S. 75, Municipal Administra tion Ordinance, 1960, is in existence‑Development Authority is authorised to prepare a Scheme in its local area', untrammelled by any such pre‑conditions under provisions of S. 24, Town Improve ment Act, 1922‑Parties effected can, however, raise objections to said Scheme and to inclusion of their land therein which will be disposed of in accordance with law.

No bar in the framing of a Development Scheme under section 24 of the Town Improvement Act, 1922, in respect of any area in which a Site Development Scheme framed under section 75 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960, in existence because the Trust is authorised to prepare a Scheme in its local area' untrammelled by any such precondi tions under the provisions of section 24 of the Act. The parties affected can, however, raise objections to the said Scheme and object to the inclusion of their land therein, which will be disposed of in accordance with law. Even a duly sanctioned scheme, before its execution, can be amended under the provisions of the Town Improvement Act. Where a power is given to do a thing in a particular way by a statute, that power includes the power to amend, vary, rescind or alter the act or thing done subject, however, to the condition that if any such action will adversely affect the personal or property or other rights, privileges or benefits of others, the persons so affected must be given a fair opportunity of representing their case. Thus the private parties shall have an opportunity of raising any objection they consider fit to the inclusion of their land in the Development Scheme framed by the Trust under sections "24 and 28 of the Act on the ground that their own Scheme stood approved already and may request for some modification in the subsequent Scheme framed by the Trust. The latter as a Statutory Body would no doubt dispose of such an objection in a fair and reasonable manner. However, the power to include the land of an approved private scheme in the subsequent Scheme cannot be denied.

Development Authority could include the area coming under the private Housing Scheme, in the larger area covered by the subsequent Development Scheme framed by it.

Development Authority was not, in law, debarred from framing a Development Scheme and acquiring land therefore and in so doing could include also the land which was in the Site Development Scheme framed by the private parties.

Moosa Kazimi v. K. M. Sheriff and another A I R 1959 Mad. 542; Mian Fazal Din v. Lahore Improvement Trust P L D 1969 S C 225 and Mst. Rasheeda Begum v. Mst. Saeeda Imtiaz Khatoon C. P. No. 585 of 1980 ref.

Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellant.

M. Farooq Zaman, Advocate Supreme Court and Hameed Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent No. 1.

Hafiz Muhammad Yousuf, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing: 18th June, 1986.

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--

This appeal, by leave of this Court, is directed against the judgment and order, dated 1‑11‑1981 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in R. S. A. No. 804 of 1980.

The relevant facts are that Ch. Mehraj Din (now deceased and represented before us by his heirs) had drawn up a private Scheme for an area measuring 235 Kanals 10 Marlas owned by him in the revenue estate of Mouza Bhikewal, Lahore. On 8‑7‑1958, he applied to the Lahore Municipal Corporation for sanctioning his aforesaid private Housing Scheme. The case was referred by the Lahore Municipal Corporation to the Lahore Improvement Trust for approval. The Trust was not agreeable to do so in the first instance on the ground that the proposed site fell in the studio zone, but later on was persuaded to do so when it was clarified that this was not so. The Scheme was approved by it vide Resolution No. 5 adopted on 30‑12‑1961. The text of the Resolution i: reproduced below: ‑

"Subject :‑Town Planning Scheme under section 75 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960, for the land of Ch. Mearaj Din in Bhikewal (S. A.‑676).

The Scheme was then forwarded to the Secretary, Lahore Improvement Trust for obtaining sanction of the Government.

However, the Lahore Municipal Corporation without obtaining any sanction from the Government considering that the Scheme stood approved sanctioned building plans of several persons who purchased plots from Ch. Mehraj Din in the Scheme area. In fact, most of the area comprising therein has been sold by him and only 16 Kanals presently remains in the ownership of the appellants. However, most of the land is still under cultivation and the aforesaid private housing scheme has not been executed. The reason for this appears to be that the Lahore Improvement Trust framed a Scheme under section 24/28 known as "Two Thousand Acres Scheme" on 6‑6‑1965 and objections were invited thereto, as envisaged by section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1.922, (hereinafter referred to as the Town Improvement Act). In this Scheme the area covered by the private Housing Scheme was included.

The appellants objected to the inclusion in the aforesaid Scheme of the area covered by their private Housing Scheme on the ground that their Scheme being a sanctioned Scheme the area comprised therein could not be included in the aforesaid Scheme, However, no reply was received to this objection, so they tiled a suit for an injunction before the Civil Courts at Lahore praying for the following two reliefs:‑‑‑

(1) The Lahore Improvement Trust be restrained from including the appellants' hand which it had sanctioned as a private Scheme in their own Scheme; and

(2) The L. I. T. should be restrained from issuing any directions to the Lahore Municipal Corporation to prohibit the sanctioning of the building plans submitted by private persons for constructing sites over their plots falling in th6 private housing scheme.

The Lahore Improvement Trust contested the, suit and in their written statement, inter alia, submitted:‑

(i) that as the Scheme approved by the L. I. T. w." accorded sanction by the Government, the appellants' private un-sanctioned scheme had no legal value; and

(ii) that in any case the Lahore Improvement Trust was competent to and net legally debarred from amalgamating the Scheme of the appellants into its own Scheme.

Eight issues arising from the pleadings of the party were framed by the trial Court of which the following two may be reproduced below:‑‑‑

(1) Whether the Lahore Improvement Trust cannot include the area of the plaintiff's land in the proposed two thousand serest scheme or any other development schemes

(2) Whether the Lahore Improvement Trust has framed and sanctioned any scheme for the plaintiff's lands; if so to what effect

The trial Court opined that once the appellants' Scheme was approved by the Lahore Improvement Trust and was acted upon it was not possible for the approving authority to undo what it had done already. In any case, according to the learned trial Judge, even if the Scheme framed by the appellant's could be included in the larger of 2000 acres covered by the Development Scheme framed by the Lahore Improvement Trust, the latter could not change the Scheme already approved by it. As regards the second issue it was held that the appellant's Scheme having been approved under section 75 of the Municipal Administration Ordi nance, 1960. read with the provisions of section 49 of the own Improve ment Act, 1922, as amended by the West Pakistan Town Improvement Act (Amendment), 1962, carried with it the force of law and so was acted upon by the plaintiff (Ch. Mehraj Din) and public men had purchased the plots from him and obtained sanctions of the building plans from the Lahore Municipal Corporation. This being the position the Lahore Improvement Trust was estopped from acting in a way so as to undo a thing which had already been done. In conclusion the trial Court observed that the Lahore Improvement Trust having sanctioned the Scheme of the land measuring 235 Kanals 10 Marlas situated in the Revenue Estate of Bhikhewal, Lahore, it could not change the Scheme even if it included it in the larger area scheme. Consequently, it granted the decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff to restrain the Lahore Improvement Trust from nullifying the approved scheme of the plaintiff (Ch. Mehraj Din).

On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge reversed the afore said judgment and decree of the trial Court observing as follow:‑

"The main controversy between the parties is as to whether the L. M. C. and L. I. T. were competent to approve the scheme themselves or they could only forward it to the higher authorities. The reference has been made to the provisions of Lahore Corpora tion Act, 1941, Punjab Towns Improvement Act and Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1961. It is significant to mention that in all of these statutes the L. I. T. and the L. M. C. are not competent to sanction the scheme itself and it is subject to the approval of Government in case of L. I. T. and by the Controlling Authorities in case of Municipal Corporation. What the plaintiff had established was that the scheme had been approved by the L. M. C. and also by the L. I. T. and admittedly there was no approval of the Controlling authorities and also by the Provincial Government; therefore, the scheme way not final. It may also be mentioned that in spite of the sanction of the Provincial Government the L. I. T. is even then competent to include such area in its scheme; therefore, the plaintiff's objection that the L. I. T. could not include his land in their new scheme has no force. Therefore, the findings of the trial Court in this respect are not sound and are hereby set aside."

On second appeal, a learned Single Judge of the Lahore. High Court who heard this appeal came to the conclusion that as the City of Lahore Corporation Act, 1941, was in force when the appellants' scheme was submitted to the Lahore Municipal Corporation the said Scheme fell to be dealt with under section 260, for the said Act. A Scheme there-under could only be deemed to be a sanctioned Scheme if approval thereto was accorded to it by the Provincial Government. But no such approval was accorded. The learned Judge further observed that in the Town Improvement Act too the Government is under section 41 thereof the sanctioning authority in respect of the various schemes which can be framed thereunder. However, no sanction was obtained from the Government by the Lahore Improvement Trust with regard to the Scheme submitted by the appellants. The learned Judge, therefore, was of the opinion that the resolution of the Lahore Improvement Trust, dated 31‑12‑1961 could be considered at the most to be a 'no objection' by it.

According to the learned Judge in the High Court, the admitted position was that the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960, had come into force when the Lahore Improvement Trust returned the Scheme, after approving it on 31‑12‑1961, to the Lahore Municipal Corporation. The approval was granted in terms of section 75 of the Municipal Administra tion Ordinance. However, according to the said section it is only after a Master Plan has been approved by the Controlling Authority that a Site Development Scheme which does not contravene its provisions can be sanctioned for the area in the prescribed manner. In so far as section 49 of the Town Improvement Act bad incorporated section 75 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, the power to sanction a Scheme would lie with the Provincial Government. He also referred to the West Pakistan Municipal Committee (Development Plans) Rules, 1964, which conferred a power on the Government to sanction the development plans in case of the Lahore Municipal Corporation and observed that admittedly no such sanction had been accorded by the Government under any of the above provisions until the Development Scheme of the Lahore Improve ment Trust was framed in 1965. No objection could, therefore, be taken to the action of the Lahore Improvement Trust as there was no sanctioned Scheme in the field when it framed its own development Scheme in 1965, wherein the land of the appellants was also included. The learned Judge also found that no part of the Scheme of the appellants had so far been executed. A major portion of the land in question had been sold to others who did not object to the absorption of their land in the Scheme of the Trust. Since the Lahore Improvement Trust has the power to frame and acquire land needed for its purposes, the appellants would be entitled to adequate compensation in accordance with law and their objection to the scheme of the Trust was not justified. The appeal was, therefore, dis missed vide judgment passed on 1‑11‑1981. Hence this appeal by leave of this Court.

Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, learned counsel for the appellants has, in support of this appeal, submitted that prior to the enactment of the City of Lahore Corporation Act, 1941, the relevant law was the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. Sections 192 to 196 of this Act dealt with the subject of Town Planning and empowered a Municipal Committee to draw up a Building Scheme for built up areas and a Town Planning Scheme for un-built areas. On the promulgation of the Town Improvement Act, powers under these sections were delegated to the Lahore Improve ment Trust under section 49 of the said Act. This reads as under:‑

"49.‑(1) The provisions of sections 96, 97, 98. . . . . .

192. 193, 194, 195, 196. . . . . . . . .

of the Municipal Act, shall, so far as may be consistent with the tenor of the Act, apply to all localities in respect of which a scheme under this Act is in force, and for the period during which such scheme remains in force; and all reference in the said sections to the Municipal Committee or to the President, or to any Officer of the Municipal Committee, shall be construed as referring to the Trust which, in respect of any such localities, may alone exercise and perform all or any of the powers and functions which under any of the said chapters and sections might have been exercised and performed by the Municipal Committee or by the President or by any officer of the Municipal Committee:

Provided that the Trust may delegate to the Chairman, or to any officer of the Trust all or any of the powers conferred by this section."

In view of the special importance of the City of Lahore, a special law was enacted in 1941, called the city of Lahore Corporation Act, 1941. This Act repealed the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, but while repealing it authorised the L. I. T. to continue to exercise the same powers and perform the same duties under the Town Improvement Act on the footing that the municipality of Lahore had not been withdrawn from the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (see proviso to section 2 of the City of Lahore Corporation Act, 1941).

According to the learned counsel, a reference to these provisions showed that the learned judge in the High Court was in error in thinking that it was the Corporation of Lahore which was empowered to approve the Scheme of the appellants under section 260, of the City of Lahore Corpora tion Act, 1941. This Act, the learned counsel submitted, .had no applica tion in view of the provisions of section 2 of the Act and that it was the Lahore Improvement Trust which was empowered to sanction the relevant Scheme. He further submitted that under section 28 of the Town Improve ment Act, a Trust is empowered to amalgamate the Scheme which it has authority to implement under the Town Improvement Act but where Scheme has been prepared by it as a delegate of the Municipal Corporation under section 75 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, it has no power to amalgamate such a Scheme and the exercise of these powers are not subject to the approval of the Provincial Government. The resolution of the Trust, dated 30‑12‑1961, therefore, was valid in all respects. It was also argued that the Trust, after it had approved the private Scheme and sent the same back to the Municipal Committee and the Municipal Committee acting on it sanctioned private building plans regarding the sites sold by the appellants, had no locus poenitentia to withdraw its approval directly or indirectly by framing a new Scheme and was in any estopped from doing so.

In reply, Mr. Farooq Zaman submitted that the Scheme submitted by the Lahore Municipal Corporation to the Lahore Improvement Trust was merely for framing of a Scheme. The Lahore Improvement Trust neither sanctioned the Scheme nor in law it could do so. In fact, the letter of the Lahore Municipal Corporation returning the scheme to the Lahore Improvement Trust clearly states that the same was being sent for obtaining the sanction of the Government. The approval by the Trust was merely in the nature of a technical approval to the extent that the said Scheme satisfied the Zoning' requirements. Moreover, the Lahore Improvement Trust, in law, was competent to acquire any land for its own Scheme, even the land covered by, a sanctioned private scheme. In this case, the private scheme, besides being unsanctioned, remained un-developed till the Scheme of the Lahore Improvement Trust was framed in 1965. The appellants, moreover, had sold away almost their entire land measuring 235 Kanals and 10 Marlas (except 16 Kanals) and the vendees were not objecting to Development Scheme framed by the Lahore Improvement Trust. In any case, even if the appellants' private Scheme was taken as a sanctioned Scheme it did not exist in perpetuity nor was it immutable.

To properly appreciate the issues involved in this case it would be appropriate to set out the legal provisions which require considera tion.

As stated already the subject of Building Schemes and Town Planning was provided for in section 192, of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. This section, to the extent relevant, reads as under:‑

"192. Building Scheme.‑(1) The Committee may, and if so required by the Commissioner, shall, within six months of the date of such requisition, draw up a building scheme for built up a building scheme for built areas, and a town planning scheme for un‑built areas, which may among other things provide for the following matters, namely:‑

(a) . . . . .

(b) . . . . .

(c) . . . . .

(2) When a scheme has been drawn up under the provisions of sub-section (1) the Committee shall give public notice of such scheme and shall at the same time intimate a date not less than thirty days from the date of such notice by which any person may submit to the Committee in writing any objection or suggestion with regard to such scheme which he may wish to make.

(3) The Committee shall consider every objection or suggestion with regard to the scheme which may be received by the date intimated under the provisions of subsection (2) and may modify the scheme in consequence of any such objection or suggestion and shall then forward such scheme as originally drawn up or as modified to the Commissioner, who may, if he thinks fit, return it to the Committee for reconsideration and re‑submission by a specified date; and the Commissioner shall submit the plans as forwarded; or as resubmitted as the case may be with his opinion to the Provincial Government, who may sanction such scheme or may refuse to sanction it or may or may return it to the committee for reconsideration and resubmis sion by a specified date."

(Underlining* is ours)

To facilitate improvement and development of towns and cities in the Punjab, the Town Improvement Act was promulgated in 1922. The following provisions thereof are of relevance in the context of this case:‑

"2. In this Act unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context‑

(1) . . . . . . . . . .

(2) . . . . . . . . . .

(3) . . . . . . . . . .

(4) . . . . . . . . . .

[Here in italics]*

(5) . . . . . . . . . .

(6) . . . . . . . . . .

(7) . . . . . . . . . .

(8) all references to anything done, required, authorised, permitted, forbidden or punishable, or to any power vested, under this Act shall include anything done, required, authorised, permitted, for bidden or punishable or any power vested‑

(a) . . . . . . . . . .

(b) . . . . . . . . . .

(c) under any provision of the Municipal Act which the Trust has by virtue of this Act power to enforce."

"Section 24.‑(1) The trust may, for the purpose of development of any locality within the municipal limits contained in its local area, prepare 'a Development Scheme', and

(2) such Trust may, if it is of opinion that it is expedient and for the public advantage to promote and control the development of and to provide for the expansion of a municipality in any locality adjacent thereto, within the local area of such Trust prepare 'an Expansion Scheme.'

(3) 'A Development Scheme' or 'an Expansion Scheme' may provide for the lay out of the locality to be developed, the purposes for which particular portions of such locality are to be utilised, the prescribed street alignment and the building line on such side of the streets proposed in such locality, the drainage of insanitary localities and such other details as may appear desirable."

Section 28.‑‑(1) A Scheme under this Act may combine one or more types of Schemes or any special features thereof.

(2) . . . . . . . . . .

The City of Lahore Corporation Act, 1941 promulgated in 1941. repealed the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, so far as the City of Lahore was concerned but in section 2 thereof, it provided as follows:‑

Section 2.‑(1) On the commencement of this Act, the Municipality of Lahore shall as hereinafter provided be deemed to have been withdrawn from the operation of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911:

Provided that the Lahore Improvement Trust constituted under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1911, shall exercise in the City of Lahore the same powers and perform the same duties under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, and any other law for the time being in force, as if the municipality of Lahore had not been withdrawn from the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911.

(2) . . . . . . . . . .

In 1960, the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, was itself replaced by the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960. This came into force in the whole of West Pakistan except the Federal Capital on 1‑5‑1960. In this law sections 74 and 77 dealt with the question of the Town Planning in the following terms:‑

"Section 74. Master Plan.‑A Municipal Committee may, and if so required by the Controlling Authority shall, draw up a Master Plan for the municipality which shall, among other matters, provide for:-

(a) a survey of the municipality including its history, statistics, public services and other prescribed particulars;

(b) development, expansion and improvement of any area within the municipality;

(c) restrictions, regulations and prohibition to be imposed with regard to the development of sites, and the erection and re‑erection of buildings within the municipality.

Section 75. Site Development Schemes.‑(1) Where a Master Plan has been drawn up under section 74 and such Master Plan has been approved, with or without any modifications, by the Controlling Authority, no owner of land exceeding such area as may be specified in this behalf in the Master Plan as so approved, shall develop the site or erect or re‑erect a building or any plot of land covered by the Master Plan, except in conformity with the provisions of a Site Development Scheme sanctioned for the area in the prescribed manner.

(2) Among other matters, a Site Development Scheme may provide for:‑

(a) to (g) . . . . . . . . . .

Although the Punjab Municipal Act of 1911 was repealed by the Municipal Administration Ordinance on 1‑5‑1960, its corresponding provisions were not immediately incorporated in section 49 of the Town Improvement Act by amending it to replace those of the Punjab Municipal Act. It was only on the 19th May, 1962, that this was done by promulgating Ordinance XVIII of 1962 called the Punjab Town Improvement (West Pakistan Amendment) Ordinance, 1962. By section 12 of this Ordinance, section 49 of the Town Improvement Act was substituted by an amended provision. The substituted section to the extent relevant reads as under:‑

"49. Powers under the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960, vested in the. Trust.‑(1) provisions of sections 42, 43, . . . . . .

44 . . . . . . . . . .

74, 75 . . . . . . . . . .

and 127 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960, shall mutatis mutandis and so far as may be .consistent with the tenor of this Act, apply to all localities in respect of which a scheme under this Act is in force, and for the purpose during which such scheme remains in force; and all references in the said sections to a municipal committee or to the Chairman of a municipal committee or to any Officer or servant of a municipal committee shall be construed as referring to the trust which in respect of any such localities may alone exercise and perform all or any of the powers and functions which under any of the said sections might have been exercised or performed by the municipal committee or by the Chairman or any Officer or servant of the municipal committee:

Provided that the trust may delegate to the Chairman or to any Officer of the trust all or any of the powers conferred by this section."

However, since this Ordinance was promulgated on the 18th May, 1962 incorporating, inter alia, section 75 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, and the appellants' private Housing Scheme was approved under section 75 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance by the Lahore improvement Trust on the 31st December, 1961, the question arises, whether the Lahore Improvement Trust could act under section 75 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance on that date The learned counsel for the appellants position in this behalf was that even though the Municipal Administration Ordinance 1960, had repealed the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, but its sections 74 and 75 re‑enacted provisions similar to those contained in section 192, of the Punjab Municipal Act; hence the provisions of sections 74 and 75 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance could be deemed as having been incorporated in section 49 of the Town Improvement Act, in place of the similar repealed provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, even before the amendment in this sense, by Ordinance XVIII of 1962. In this connection he relied upon a judgment from the Indian jurisdiction Muosa Kazimi v. K. M. Sheriff and another (A I R 1959 Mad. 542).

Even if section 75 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance could be deemed to have been incorporated in section 49 of the Town Improve ment Act since 1‑5‑1960 in that event too the provisions of section 75 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance could be availed of, in terms of section 49 of the Town Improvement Act, only in those localities where a Scheme under the Town Improvement Act was in force and for the period during which such a Scheme remained in force. Apparently no Scheme, such as the Site Development Scheme framed by the appellants, was in force at the relevant time. Thus, even if the contention of the appellants that the view of the learned Single Judge that the validity of the appellants' Scheme was not to be adjudged with reference to the provisions of section 260, of the City of Lahore Corporation Act, 1941, but with reference to section 75 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance read with section 49 of the Town Improvement Act, is accepted the appellants' Scheme would still be vulnerable in law because no such Scheme was already in force in the locality.

To get over this difficulty Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman submitted that there was no evidence on the record, one way or the other, about the existence or otherwise of a Scheme being or not being in force in the locality at the relevant time. But it is clear from the record that the first Scheme covering this area was framed under sections 24 and 28 of the Town Improvement Act by the Lahore Improvement Trust on 6‑6‑1965.

Furthermore, the respondents are on unassailable ground in urging that the appellants' Scheme could be amalgamated in the Development Scheme framed on 6‑6‑1965 by the Trust under sections 24 and 28 of the Town Improvement Act. Section 24 of the Town Improvement Act, reproduced above already, provides that the Trust may, for the purpose of development of any locality within the municipal limits contained in its local area, prepare a Development Scheme. Local area, according to subsection (7) of section 2 of the Act means the area in which the Town Improvement Act has been applied for the purpose of carrying out the purposes of the Act. It is an admitted position that by the provisions of section 49 of the Act, the Town Improvement Act has been applied to the area in question. Furthermore, under section 28 of the Town Improvement Act a Scheme there-under may combine one or more schemes or any special features thereof. Section 36 of the Act provides that when a Scheme under the said Act has been framed the Trust shall prepare a notice stating the said fact, the boundaries of the locality comprised in the scheme and the statement of the land proposed to be acquired and a general map of the locality comprised in the Scheme. All this information must be published in the official Gazette as also in a newspaper and the public asked to submit its objections within a specified period. So far as the procedure to tie followed in the acquisition of the land is concerned, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with certain modifications indicated in the schedule to the Act will apply. In view of the statutory provisions there appears to be no bar in the framing of a Development Scheme under section 24 of the Town Improvement Act in respect of any area in which a Site Development Scheme under section 75 of the Municipal Administra tion Ordinance is in existence because the Trust is authorised to prepare a Scheme in its "local area" untrammelled by any such preconditions, under the provisions of section 24 of the Act. The parties affected can, however, raise objections to the said Scheme and object to the inclusion of their land therein, which will he disposed of in accordance with law, indeed this Court has in Mian Fazal Din v. Lahore Improvement Trust (P L D 1969 S C 225), already held that even a duly sanctioned scheme, before the execution, can be amended under the provisions of the Town Improvement Act. It was observed by this Court that where a power is given to do a thing in a particular way by a statute, that power includes the power to amend, vary, rescind or alter the actor thing done subject, however, to the condition that if any such action will adversely affect the personal of property or other rights, privileges or benefits of others, the persons s affected must be given a fair opportunity of representing their case. Thus, the appellants shall have an opportunity of raising any objection they consider fit to the inclusion of their land in the Development Scheme framed by the Trust under sections 24 and 28 of the Act on the ground that their own Scheme stood approved already and any request for some modification in the subsequent Scheme framed by the Trust the latter as a Statutory Body would no doubt dispose of such an objection in a fair and reasonable manner. However, the power to include the land of the appellants in the subsequent Scheme cannot be denied. In Mst. Rasheeda Begum v. Mst. Saeeda Imtiaz Khatoon (C. P. No. 585 of 1980) a con tention was raised on behalf of the petitioner in that case that there being already a Scheme sanctioned for the area under section 260, of the Lahore Corporation Act, 1941, the modification therein could not be made thereafter through a subsequent Scheme framed under the Town Improve ment Act. This Court rejected this contention observing:‑

"A Scheme framed under section 260 of the Act is not immutable nor does it exist in perpetuity. Under the Town Improvement Act a Scheme for a much larger area i. e. Rajgarh Development Scheme was framed. There was notice to the public, notice to the owners affected, hearing of objections, their determination and thereafter provisions for finalizing the Scheme . . . . . . The powers of the Improvement Trust and of the Government to revise and modify the Scheme while. "It the stage of execution have been examined by this Court in Mian Fazal Din v. Lahore Improvement Trust, Lahore and another P L D 1969 S C 225 and upheld. The petitioner could, therefore, have no legal grievance."

In view of these pronouncements of this Court we are of the opinion that the Lahore Improvement Trust could include the area coming under the appellants Scheme, in the larger area covered by the subsequent Develop ment Scheme framed by it. Admittedly no part of the appellants' Scheme has been executed. On the other hand nearly the whole of the land in question (except 16 Acres) has been sold to others who are not objecting to the absorption of their land in the Scheme of the respondent but only requesting that their legitimate interests should be safeguarded. The learned Additional District Judge has expressed a hope that this will be done and we hope so to. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the Lahore Improvement Trust was not, in law, debarred from framing a Development Scheme and acquiring land therefore and in so doing could include also the land which was in the Site Development Scheme framed by the appellants.

On this view of the matter we find that no ground for interference with the judgment order of the High Court has been made out. This appeal must fail and is, accordingly, dismissed with costs.

M. B. A. Appeal 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.