1. SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.---Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 a direction is sought `to release and hand over the land measuring 47 Kanals and 17 Marlas to the petitioners, legal heirs of late Ch. Ahmad Saeed in village Garjakh, Tehsil and District Gujranwala, for which the petitioners are willing to pay Rs.95,700 the amount received at the time of award by the late father of the petitioners". The direction so sought has been made in the background that certain land including the above mentioned land belonging to predecessor- in-interest of the petitioners was acquired for establishing Ordnance Clothing Factory. The process of said acquisition admittedly is a fait accompli as the matter stands concluded by the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 8-10-1991 in C.A. No.389 of 1986. It is now however, the case of the petitioners that since the land was not made use for the purpose it was acquired the same may be returned to them for which they are ready to return the compensation money received by them. In order to seek, strength to their plea that the land was not used for the purpose it was acquired, the stance taken by the Military Estate Officer in the comments and by the rest of the respondent has been invoked. In his comments the Military Estate Officer, Kharian Circle, Kharian Cantt. Has mentioned that "land was acquired for Ordnance Clothing Factory in village Garjakh and acquisition formalities had already been completed and award announced. No doubt that project of Ordnance Clothing Factory was shifted to some other place but the land is still required for Defence purposes The Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Gujranwala and the Commissioner, Gujranwala Division have not however, taken any specific stance on this aspect of the matter. It is thus, contended by the learned counsel that the petitioners were entitled to the return of the land which was not required for setting up the Ordnance Clothing Factory, the purpose for which it was acquired. Reference in this context has been made by him to Province of Punjab through Collector, Lahore and another v. Saeed Ahmad and 4 others PLD 1993 SC 455 wherein the observations with reference to paragraph 100 of the Financial Commissioner's Order No.28 finds mention that "it may be stated that there is no doubt that the Government has the option either to put the land to auction or as a matter of grace, restore the same to the previous owner in terms of paragraph 100 of the Order. It, therefore, must follow that a previous owner cannot compel the Government to restore the unutilized land as a matter of right. However, we may observe that the discretion vested in the Government under the above paragraph is to be exercised fairly and reasonably, and not arbitrarily or capriciously". Reference has also been made by the learned counsel to rule 14 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 and also relies upon Yaqoob Khan v. Government of Punjab and others 1986 SCMR 1224. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab has made reference to Bashir Ahmed Akhgar and others v.
2. Collector, Land Acquisition and others 1992 MLD 2364, Mst. Kishwar Sultana and another v. Province of Punjab through District Officer Revenue/ Notified Officer and 3 others PLJ 2005 Lahore 1113 and Bostan v. Land Acquisition Collector, Rawalpindi and 4 others PLD 2004 Lah. 47.
3. It may be observed that distinction need to be kept in view in the case of withdrawal from acquisition and where the acquisition is complete in all respects but the erstwhile landowner seeks return of the land. The reliance upon any precedent, therefore, relating to the withdrawal from acquisition may not be helpful in the context of the controversy involved herein. Since the petitioners have rested their case upon rule 14 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 it is thus, to be seen whether any such direction can be issued to the respondents as has been prayed for in the writ petition. Rule 14 (ibid) is thus, reproduced for convenience of reference and to understand its import and scope:-- "14(1) Where any land has been acquired for any Department of the Government or a local authority for a public purpose and it is proposed to abandon the same, it shall be handed over to the Collector who shall be responsible for the disposal of the same in accordance with the orders of Government.
(2) The disposal of land under sub-rule (1) shall be made by Government in its discretion, and its possession restored to the persons from whom it was acquired or to their heirs as under:--
(i) Free of cost the original owners or their heirs, if compensation for the acquisition of land has not been paid.
(ii) On refunding the amount paid as compensation less the 15 per cent. Granted for compulsory acquisition if the original landowners or their heirs have already received cash compensation in respect of their land. The price may be allowed, if necessary, on account of deterioration or enhanced in the rare case of land having been improved by the use to which Government has put it.
(3) Where the original landowners or their heirs were provided alternate land in lieu of their acquired land, such land shall not be restored to them, but shall be utilized or disposed of by the Board of Revenue in accordance with law with policy of the Government regarding disposal and alienation of lands."
4. The perusal of the rule thus, makes it abundantly clear that on abandonment of the land and its purpose, the same is to be handed over to the Collector who is then responsible for its disposal in accordance with the orders of the Government. The provisions of this rule came to be considered in Bashir Ahmed Akhgar and others v. Collector, Land Acquisition and others 1992 MLD 2364. It was observed that "The only grievance of the petitioners is that since the purpose of constructing cantonment on the acquired land has been abandoned, and that the purpose of acquisition having not been fulfilled their land should be returned to them. Learned counsel has failed to show any provision of law where under the petitioners are entitled, as of right, for return of their land due to non-use of it for the purpose it was acquired. In rule 14 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, it is stated that the Government in its discretion may return the land to its owners if it has abandoned the scheme for which it had been acquired but for that matter the petitioners ought to approach the Government straightway and the Government in its discretion may, if so wishes, return the land to them on the condition it deems fit". It is thus, obvious and clear that no direction of absolute nature can be issued by the Court to the respondents to return the land to the petitioners and the proper course open to them, however, under rule 14 (ibid) was to approach the Government for consideration of their grievance.
5. Therefore, direction as prayed for cannot be issued, the petition is dismissed with an option open to the petitioners to seek the redressal of their grievance by approaching the Government as contemplated by rule 14, with no order as to costs.