' SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.--- Through this consolidated judgment it is proposed to dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.2079 of 2006, 5346 of 2006, 2589 of 2006, 2594 of 2006, 8173 of 2006, 3971 of 2006 and 5875 of 2006 filed before this Court to challenge the proposed establishment of Journalist Colony on land situated in Mauzas Rakh Chhabeel, Kot Dhun Chand, Bagrian Syedan and Mauza Harbanspura, Tehsil Cantt. District Lahore by the respondents.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the lis at hand are as follows:- Writ Petitions Nos.2589 of 2006, 5875 of 2006, 3871 of 2006 and 2594 of 2006
3. The land subject-matter of the, aforesaid constitutional petitions is admittedly evacuee land. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the said land was allotted to various claimants by the Settlement Department. The said allotments came for scrutiny before the Honourable Supreme Court which was pleased to declare the said allotments as illegal and without lawful authority vide its judgment reported as Muhammad Ramzan and others v. Member (Rev.)/CSS and others 1997 SCMR 1635. It is alleged, that it was directed that the land in question be disposed of in accordance with a scheme framed by the Settlement Authorities. The petitioners who have filed the aforesaid constitutional petitions including, one in a representative capacity, claim that the land in question has been purchased by the petitioners and other occupants from ostensible owners thereof through registered sale-deeds and other documents. It is further contended that a large number of people ate in occupation of the said land including the petitioners who have raised construction thereupon and private housing schemes have been established which are at various stages of development, hence are entitled to land in their occupation as bona fide purchasers. In the above prospective, it is contended, that the Chief Minister of the Punjab approved a summary, dated 1141- 2004 directing that the petitioners and other occupants of the land who were "bona fide purchasers" would be adjusted on the land in their occupation and, therefore, the respondents cannot now gift away the land for the establishment of a Journalist Colony to the prejudice of the rights of the petitioners and other occupants. In the alternative it is contended that in terms of the Scheme for the Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties, dated 31st January, 1977 issued pursuant to section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 the property in question could either be allotted to the occupants applying under the said scheme and in terms thereof or be disposed of through unrestricted pubic auction, therefore, it is alleged, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the property in dispute could either be allotted to the petitioners and other occupants or disposed of through unrestricted public auction and the act of the respondents of transferring the property to the Journalist Foundation for the establishment of a Journalist Housing Colony is wholly illegal. In support of their contentions the learned counsel have relied upon the judgments reported as Muhammad Ramzan and others v.
Member (Rev.)/CSS and others 1997 SCMR 1635 and Mian Atta Ulllah v. Lahore Development Authority Tribunal and 5 others 1996 CLC 1943.
4. The respondents upon notice have filed their parawise comments/written statements.
5. The learned Advocate-General Punjab has also been heard along with the Additional Advocate- General Punjab as well as counsel for the other respondents.
6. Neither in the comments nor at the bar the factum of the summary dated 11-11-2004 (copy thereof is on the record) was disputed or denied. In fact this aspect of the matter was studiously avoided and no comments were offered in writing or at the bar regarding the legal effect of the approval of the said summary. Similarly the learned Advocate-General, Punjab also did not comment on the Scheme framed for the disposal of available land or its application or otherwise to the lis at hand. It was merely contended that in pursuance of the Punjab Journalists Housing Foundation Act, 2004 a housing scheme has been floated and was being established in the greater public interest. It was, however, denied that the petitioner were in occupation of the land in dispute or were bona fide purchasers thereof.
Writ Petitions Nos.2079 of 2006, 5346 of 2006 and 8173 of 2006.
7. The above captioned constitutional petitions have been filed by private landowners to challenge the validity of the notification under section 4 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 6-7- 2005 and 31-12-2005 as well as the corrigendum, dated .27-5-2006 expressing the intention to acquire the land owned by the petitioners for the Journalist Colony. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the notifications dated 6-7-2005 and 31-12-2005 do not reflect the existence of the Punjab Journalists Housing. Foundation Act, 2004 thereby denuding the same of all legality. It is further contended that the corrigendum, dated 27-5-2006 purports to be retrospective in nature, hence, is invalid. Even otherwise the said corrigendum has been issued pendente lite. It is the consistent and declared policy of the Government of the Punjab that no private land shall be acquired for the establishment of housing scheme. It is added that the condition precedents for acquisition provided for by the Punjab Journalists Housing Foundation Act, 2004 have not been complied with in letter or in spirit and the actions purportedly taken in this behalf are ultra vires of the aforesaid Act of 2004. Hence, the impugned notifications issued in furtherance thereof one also illegal and invalid. It is further contended that the Punjab Private Site Development Schemes (Regulation) Rules, 2005 have been violated and its application dispensed with without any legal or factual basis. The Foundation must first privately purchase 80% of the land before seeking acquisition of further land under the Punjab Land Acquisition Act, 1894. And provisions pertaining to acquisition of private land are to be construed strictly for the benefit of the citizens. It has been vehemently argued that the purported purpose for the acquisition of the land of the petitioners is not a public purpose as its beneficiaries are a small segment of the society rather than public at large. It is contended that even otherwise the whole process is mala fide inasmuch as the Government is attempting to benefit and appease the Journalists at the expense of private citizens so as to persuade the said Journalists not to highlight the misdeeds of the Government. Lastly it was contended that the petitioners are being deprived of their valuable land for a mere fraction of its market price which is roughly 1/10th of the price that the Government was seeking from the occupants of adjacent to evacuee land (subject-matter of the connected constitutional petitions) and the impugned action is violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners more particularly those guaranteed by Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitutio4 of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. In support of their contentions the learned counsel have relied upon the judgments reported as Messrs Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1992 SCMR 1652; Taj Mahal Hotel Ltd. And others v. Karachi Water and Sewerage Board and others 1997 SCMR 503; Messrs Sanghar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1991 CLC 456; Central Government of Pakistan v. Sardar Fakhar-e-Alam and others 1985 CLC 2228; Central Government of Pakistan v.
Sardar Fakhr-e-Alam and another 1986 SCMR 188; E.A. Evans v. Muhammad Ashraf PLD 1964 SC 536; Muhammad Akbar and others v. Commissioner Rawalpindi Division and others PLD 1976 Lah.
747; Fauji Foundation and others v. Shamimur Rehman PLD 1983 SC 457; Ajit Kumar Das v. Province of East Pakistan PLD 1958 Dacca 280; State of Bombay v. R.S. Nanji and others AIR 1956 SC 294 and Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence and others v. Province of Punjab and others PLD 1975 SC 37.
8. The learned Advocate-General Punjab in response has stated that the land is being acquired for a public purpose and the Government alone is vested with the jurisdiction to determine whether a particular purpose is in the public interest or not. And this aspect of the matter is not justiciable by this Court. It is further contended that the petitioners have an alternative remedy of filing objections under section 5-A of the Punjab Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hence these constitutional petitions are not maintainable. Adds that the quantum of the compensation due to the petitioners will be determined through the process laid down under the Punjab Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the fora established or mentioned therein and this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction cannot venture forth to determine fair compensation for which not only an alternative remedy is available but also would require a factual inquiry which is not possible to be undertaken by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. It is further contended that the corrigendum is not only intra vires the law but also does not invalidate the acquisition proceedings. In support of his contentions the learned Advocate-General, Punjab and the Additional Advocate-General, Punjab has placed reliance on the following judgments:--
(1) Dr. Muhammad Nasim Javed v. Lahore Cantonment Housing Society Ltd., through the Secretary Fortress Stadium Lahore Cantt. And 2 others PLD 1983 Lah. 552; (2) Government of Pakistan v.
Sikandar Khan and others PLD 1987 Pesh. 68; (3) Bostan v. Land Acquisition Collector, Rawalpindi and 4 others PLD 2004 Lah. 47; (4) Zafeer Gul and 19 others v. N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary, Government of N.-W.F.P. Revenue Department and Senior Member, N.-W.F.P. Board of Revenue, Peshawar and others 2001 CLC 1853 (Peshawar); (5) Administrator, Municipal Committee, Kotli and another v. Muhammad Abdullah and 3 others 2001 YLR 3367 and (6) Mst. Nasreen Zohra v. Multan Development Authority through Director-General and another 1991 CLC 1001.
9. Adverting first to the evacuee land, it appears that the same at various points of time was allotted to claimants for adjustment against pending verified P.I.Us. And the Honourable Supreme Court on examining such allotments concluded that by operation of law the land in question was "building sites" and not available for transfer either as agricultural urban land or as agricultural land as the same was situated within the Municipal limits of Lahore and were deemed to be building sites in view of the notification, dated 16-5-1973 issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1968.
Consequently, vide judgment in Muhammad Ramzan's case (supra), the said allotments were held to be devoid of lawful authority and coram non judice by the Honourable Supreme Court. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the apex Court the land in question "became available" in terms of section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act XIV of 1975 on 25th June, 1997 from the date thereof.
10. It appears from the record that on the initiation of City District Government, Lahore a summary was prepared and sent to the Chief Minister of the Punjab by the Nazim proposing that "bona fide purchasers" in the existing housing schemes be adjusted and in cases of encroachment cost of land be taken from the occupants as determined by the District Price Assessment Committee. The said summary prepared on 10-11-2004 was approved by the Chief Minister on 11-11-2004.
Subsequently, the same land or a substantial part thereof has now been made available to the Journalist Foundation by the respondents with the approval of the Chief Minister of the Punjab, the act impugned in the present constitutional petitions. It appears that the Government of the Punjab has acted in the highest traditions of Lord Balfour and the land in question like Palestine has become a twice promised land.
11. It has been noted with great interest, that the aforesaid summary has been initiated by the City District Government Lahore which has no right or interest in the said land which vested in Central Government to be transferred to the Provincial Government in terms of section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act XIV of 1975 and was to be dealt with in accordance therewith as was also held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Muhammad Ramzan's case (supra).
12. It has also been noticed that the said summary is the outcome of decisions taken at a meeting presided over by the Zila Nazim, Lahore which was attended by the representatives of the occupants, the D.C.O. And the Members of the Local Police including D.S.P., C.I.A. But the Chief Settlement Commissioner or his representative are conspicuous by their absence. Even otherwise an approval by the Chief Minister of the Province of a summary may not in every event have binding effect and legal consequences. For instance if a summary suggesting an amendment in a Provincial Statute is approved by the Chief Minister legal consequences will flow only if the statute is amended in accordance with the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 i,e, by way of enactment of an amending Act by the Provincial Assembly or by the promulgation of an Ordinance in this behalf issued by the Governor of the Province. Similarly if a summary is approved suggesting amendment in the rules, legal consequences will flow upon the implementation thereof by the actual amendment of the rules by the competent designated authority. In the instant case too legal consequences would arise only upon the implementation in law of the decisions approved by the Chief Minister. The land in question having become available in terms of section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act XIV of 1975 was to be transferred to the Provincial Government in terms thereof and thereafter dealt with by the Provincial Government under a Scheme to be prepared by it in this behalf. Thus, the approval of the summary must necessarily have been followed by the formulation and issuance of a fresh scheme under section 3 of Act XIV of 1975 before any legal consequence would follow or any right accrue. It is not the case of any of the parties before this Court that any such fresh new scheme was ever issued by the Provincial Government under section 3 of Act XIV of 1975 pursuant to or embodying the summary approved by the Chief Minister on 11-11-2004. In the circumstances the petitioners cannot claim any vested right qua the land in question on the basis of the approval of the said summary by the Chief Minister.
13. It may be noted that the claim of the petitioners qua the land in question, on the factual plane, has not been verified through an inquiry involving the recording of evidence. Even otherwise, the claim of the alleged predecessors-in-interest of the present petitioners regarding the same land was the subject-matter of the proceedings before the Honourable Supreme Court in Muhammad Ramzan's case (supra) wherein it was held that the allotment orders in their favour were coram non judice and a nullity in the eye of law. Specific directions were issued for further dealing with the said land. The petitioners as the alleged successors-in-interest are bound by the said judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court. Thus, not only the petitioners nor their alleged predecessors-in- interest have any right, title or interest in the said land whatsoever but also the alleged summary was, on the face of it, in violation of the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court.
14. It is common ground between the parties that in fact a scheme i,e, the Scheme for the Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties dated 31st of January, 1977 had been issued by the Provincial Government pursuant to section 3 of Act XIV of 1975 which, as amended from time to time, would be applicable to the land in question. It is in this context that the learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that the land must necessarily be disposed of in terms of provisions of the said scheme i,e, either to the persons specified therein, on terms and conditions enumerated thereby or in the absence thereof by unrestricted public auction as is specifically mentioned in paragraph 11 which reads as follows:-- "(11) Sale by auction.--- A house, shop or a building site having permanent construction for the transfer of which no application is received and every property that is cancelled from the name of a defaulter and a vacant building site shall be disposed of by unrestricted public auction."
15. I am afraid that the learned counsel for the petitioners have lost sight of paragraph 30 of the same scheme which reads as follows:-- "30 Powers to transfer properties in public interest.--- The Member, Board of Revenue (Residual Properties), may transfer, in public interest any available property in such manner and on such price as he may deem proper."
' In the instant case, pursuant to a letter, dated 23-9-2005 of the Board of Revenue Punjab in purported exercise of powers conferred under paragraph 30 of the said Scheme vide mutation dated 26-9-2005, 923 Kanals and 15 Marlas of the said land has been made available to the Journalist Foundation. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that such transfer is ultra vires of paragraph 30 of the scheme as the transfer has not been effected in the public interest inasmuch as the said transfer is for the benefit of a limited segment of the society and not the public-at-large.,
16. In respect of Writ Petitions Nos.2079 of 2006, 5346 of 2006 and 8173. Of 2006 challenging the notifications under section 4 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the acquisition of the land for the Journalist Housing Colony is not a public purpose as it is for the benefit for a limited group of people, hence, the notifications are not only ultra vires the Punjab Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but also violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners as embodied in Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
17. It has been noticed that in para. 30 of the Scheme, the expression employed is "Public Interest" while in Punjab Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the expression "Public Purpose" is used. It is difficult to elaborate the latter expression without using the former. In fact, two expressions may be for all practical purposes be interchangeable.
' In the judgment reported as Ajit Kumar Das v. Province of East Pakistan represented by Secretary Finance and Revenue (Revenue) Department, Government of East Pakistan and others PLD 1958 Dacca 280 it has been held as follows:-- "Now in this section, the words used are 'public interest'. 'We however, do not see much distinction between the expression `public purpose' and 'public interest'. In any event the word `public' denotes that the requisition must be for the benefit of the people in general as distinguished from a particular individual."
18. In the light of the above, it is clear and obvious that the pivotal question requiring adjudication by this Court is whether a housing scheme for the benefit of a specified segment of the society is for a public purpose and in the public interest, in terms of the Punjab Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and paragraph 30 of the Scheme for the Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties. The aforesaid question has repeatedly come up for adjudication. A learned Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court in a case reported as Zafeer Gul and 19 others v. N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary, Government of N.-W.F.P. Revenue Department and Senior Member, N.-W.F.P. Board of Revenue, Peshawar and 5 others 2001 CLC 1853 was confronted with the question whether acquisition of land for the construction of Housing Colony for WAPDA employees was a "public purpose". The Court, inter alia, after examining the judgment reported as
(1) R.L. Arora v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others AIR 1962 SC 764; (2) Anand Kumar and another v. State of M.P. And others AIR 1963 Madh. Pra. 256; (3) Veeraraghavachariar and others v. The Secretary of State for India AIR 1925 Mad. 837; (4) Pakistan through Ministry of Works Government of Pakistan, Karachi and another v. Muhammad Ali and others PLD 1960 SC (Pak.) 60.
' Concluded that "the land acquired for establishing residential Colony for the WAPDA employees falls in the category of public purpose". Constitutional petitions challenging the acquisition of land for the Lahore Cantonment Cooperative Housing Society Limited (as it then was) were dismissed by this Court vide judgment reported as Dr. Muhammad Nasim Javed v. Lahore Cantonment Housing Society Ltd., through the Secretary Fortress Stadium Lahore Cantt. And 2 others PLD 1983 Lah.
552. Acquisition of land for the Army Welfare Trust was challenged before this Court, inter alia, on the ground that it was not for a public purpose. The said constitutional petition was dismissed by this Court vide judgment reported as Bostan v. Land Acquisition Collector, Rawalpindi and 4 others PLD 2004 Lah.
47. Similar issue also came up before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan when land was sought to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the benefit of the Revenue Employees Cooperative Housing Society. Such land was already earmarked anti required, inter alia, for the establishment of Telephone Exchange, Building Workshops etc. By the Telephone and Telegraph Department of the Federation. The question raised was that the land was not be being acquired for a public purpose as its beneficiaries were only a limited segment of the society. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in its judgment reported as Federation of Pakistan through G.M. Telegraph and Telephone Department. Lahore Telephone Region, Lahore v. Province of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector/Assistant Commissioner, headquarters, Lahore and 2 others 1993 SCMR 1673 was pleased to hold as follows:-- "The submission is that the words 'amongst others' have reference to the requirement of the land for the purpose of Telephone Exchange Department, Workshop, Public Call Office, Dispensary and accommodation for emergency staff, as disclosed in the letter aforesaid. The contention is well- grounded. The High Court was not justified in ignoring the objects for utilization of the land by the Telegraph and Telephone Department stated in their said communication, which decidedly is a public purpose of higher order as compared with the one for which the land is acquired for use by the Board of Revenue Employees Housing Society Ltd., namely, construction of housing colony. The reason being that so far as the latter is concerned only a section of the society would be benefited by the acquisition of the land but its utilization by Telegraph and Telephone Department involves the interest of the public at large.
19. The question of the validity of requisition of property for a public purpose came up before the Honourable Supreme Court in case reported as Pakistan through Ministry of. Works Government of Pakistan, Karachi and another v. Muhammad Ali and others PLD 1960 SC (Pak.) 60 wherein it was held as follows:-- "These two decisions, in my opinion, furnish ample authority for holding that the provision of residences is not by itself a matter falling outside the concept of a "public purpose" provided that it is part of a scheme for making general provision of that character. Secondly, the provision of residences for a particular class of persons, even though it may operate so as to provide a particular residence for a particular member of that class is also not excluded from the meaning of the expression "public purpose", nor does it make any difference whether the residences are for completely unprivileged persons like coolies or for those enjoying the patronage of Government in the capacity of officers. And the further conclusion which emerges from these decisions is that the provision of such residences may be included within the meaning of the expression "public purpose...."
' A perusal of the aforesaid judgments more particularly of the apex Court reveal that providing a housing for a limited and specified segment of the society is a public purpose though where the benefit would endure to the entire community the same would be a higher public purpose. In short the individual interest must give way to interest of the community or a part thereof and a part of the community must give way to the interest of the entire community or public-at-large.
20. There can be no escape from the fact that our society is divided horizontally and vertically into various groups and classes with vastly unequal economic and social status and benefits. To treat unequal people equally is perhaps the worst form of discrimination. It is always necessary to target specific deprived groups for providing economic and social benefits including housing. The framers of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 were very keenly aware of this social and economic disparity and inequality as well as the necessity for the State to address the same to ensure social justice as is obvious from Articles 3, 37 and 38 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Consequently, while providing for protection of proprietary rights in Article 24 of the Constitution exceptions were created. The relevant portion of the said Article reads as follows:-- "24. Protection of property rights.--- (1) No person shall be deprived of his property save in accordance with law.
(2) No property shall be compulsorily acquired or taken possession of save for a public purpose, and save by the authority of law which provides for compensation therefor and either fixes the amount of compensation or specifies the principles on and the manner in which compensation is to be determined and given.
(3) Nothing in this Article shall affect the validity of-
(a) ...............................................
(b) ...............................................
(c) ...............................................
(d) ...............................................
(e) any law providing for the acquisition of any class of property for the purpose of--- (i)
(ii) providing housing and public facilities and services such as road, water supply, sewerage, gas and electric power to all or any specified class of citizens; or
(iii) ...............................................
' The aforesaid provision of the Constitution makes it clear and obvious that the individual can be deprived of his property for the purposes of providing housing to a specified class of citizens and any law or act in this behalf will not offend against the fundamental right granted under Article 24 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
21. In view of the aforesaid dictum of the superior Courts more particularly the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan and the provision of the Constitution reproduced above this Court has no hesitation in holding that establishment of a housing colony for the benefit of a specified segment of citizens does not offend against the fundamental righti enshrined in the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and is also a public purpose and in the public interest both in terms of the Punjab Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as well as paragraph 30 of the Scheme for the Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties of 1977. Of course it would require to be examined as to where the benefiting segment of citizens is located in the economic and social pyramid of the Pakistani society. It is not necessary that such citizens be a very bottom of social and economic strata. Needless to say that business ventures motivated by commercial gains would obviously also not be included in such exception.
(4) The land in question both evacuee and private is purportedly earmarked for establishment of a housing colony for Journalists under the auspices of the Punjab Journalists Housing Foundation Act, 2004. In terms of section 3 of the said Act the Foundation is to be established to be known as the Punjab Journalists Housing Foundation for the purpose of inter alia acquiring or purchasing and developing land for setting up housing schemes. The persons eligible for allotment of plots under such schemes are mentioned in section 7 of the said Act and include Council Members of the Press Club, Employees of the Punjab Information Department and Employees of the Broadcast media. It is also provided in section 7 of the Act that each eligible person shall be entitled to one plot which shall not be available for alienation for a period to be specified by the Foundation. In the instant case the record reveals that the Foundation was established vide notification dated 24th June, 2004. In the first meeting of the Board of Directors of the Foundation held on 15th of June, 2005 it has been decided that the said Housing Scheme be established and at least 4/5th of the plots thereof be allotted to Members of the Press Club while the balance being available for allotment to the Employees of the Punjab Information Department and of the Broadcast Media. The area of plots was designated as 10 Marlas and 5 Marlas. It has also been decided that the price of the said plots would be Rs,3.5 lacs and Rs,1.75 lacs respectively. It has also been provided that the title to the plots would only be transferred five years after the completion of the house thereupon.
23. The overwhelming majority of the persons eligible for allotment of the plots are Working Journalists who though performing a very vital and important function for the society are certainly not an affluent segment of the community. I is also clear and obvious that entire exercise is not a commercial venture for the benefit of any particular individual developer. Similarly the usual safeguards against speculations have also been put into place. Thus, there is nothing in the act nor the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Foundation which would persuade this Court to hold that the beneficiaries of the housing colony are not a segment of citizens of Pakistan deserving or requiring a housing colony for them. Similarly the venture does not appear to be commercial in nature.
24. The upshot of the above discussion is that the project at hand i,e, the Housing Colony for Journalists under the auspices of the Punjab Journalists Housing Foundation established under the Punjab Journalists Housing Foundation Act, 2004 is a public purpose and in the public interest both in terms of the Punjab Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and paragraph 30 of the Scheme for the Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties, 1977. And the transfer or acquisition of land for the said purpose is not violative of Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
25. Adverting now to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the acquisition under the Punjab Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is violative of Rule 3(2)(g) of the Punjab Private Site Development Scheme (Regulation) Rules, 2005 which reads as follows:-- "3. Submission of application.---
(1) A Developer shall submit an application for sanction of Scheme to (a) the Lahore Development Authority in case Scheme falls in the area of City District, Lahore, (b) concerned Development Authority in case Scheme falls in its controlled area as defined under the Development of Cities Act, 1976 and (C) the concerned Tehsil Municipal Administration (TMA) in all other cases.
(2) No such application shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by:-- (a)
(b)
(c)
(d) ' details of land proposed to be acquired, if any, provided that land proposed to be acquired shall not exceed 20% of the total area of the housing scheme.
' A perusal of the said rules reveals that any Developer must submit an application seeking sanction of a private housing scheme under the said rules which have been framed under section 191 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001. Rule 3 spells out the details of material which must accompany such application. Rules 3(2)(d) requires that a location plan and lay out of the scheme must be provided. Sub-rule (2)(g) provides that the details of the land forming part of the scheme which does not vest in the Developer must also be identified and such land should not be more than 20% of the total scheme. The only logical interpretation of the aforesaid sub-rule is that while applying for sanction of a scheme a detailed lay out and location of the scheme identifying the H land forming part thereof must be made available and for purposes of sanction 80% of land forming part of Scheme must already vest in the Developer with only 20% to be purchased or acquired subsequently. The learned counsel is perhaps reading too much into the word "acquire" in Rule 2(2)(g). It is clear and obvious that the said word has been used in its literal, general and generic sense meaning to purchase and not I necessarily acquired in terms of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel that the Foundation in question must first own 80% of the land before setting into motion proceedings under the Punjab Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is wholly misconceived. Even otherwise, this question would arise when and if such a scheme framed by the Foundation is presented for sanction before the designated authority under the said rules. Needless to say that the said rules are unhappily worded and whether the same apply to a public as opposed to a private housing scheme floated by a Foundation set up by the Government is also questionable.
26. The learned counsel for the petitioners has laid great emphasis on the fact that in the original notifications under section 4 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 16-7-2005 and 31-12- 2005, the expression "under Punjab Journalists Housing Foundation Act, 2004" is absent and has been added vide the corrigendum, dated 27-5-2006. The effect of a corrigendum to a notification under the Punjab Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is well-settled.
27. Corrigendum merely means a thing to be corrected or rectified. A notification under the Land Acquisition Act can always be rectified and corrected by way of issuance of corrigendum in exercise of powers conferred under section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and such an exercise does not vitiate or wash away the notification as has been held in the judgment reported as Government of Pakistan v. Sikandar Khan and others PLD 1987 Pesh.
68.
28. In certain cases, issuance of corrigendum may at best affect the material date for purposes of ascertaining the compensation as has been held in the judgment reported as Central Government of Pakistan v. Sardar Fakhar-e-Alam and others 1985 CLC 2228. In the instant case, no substantial or material change has been affected in the public purpose for which land has been acquired, which has merely been amplified.
29. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private land owners whose land has been included in the notifications under section 4 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have expressed their fear that fair compensation shall not be paid. Suffice it to say that fair compensation can only be determined after a factual inquiry requiring the recording of evidence which is not possible in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction by this Court. Furthermore, adequate alternative remedies are available under the Punjab Land Acquisition Act, 1894, whereby the grievance, if any, of such land owners can be redressed as and when the occasion arises.
30 The upshot of the above discussion is that the alleged occupants of the evacuee land have no right, title or interest therein and the utilization of such land along with land owned by private individuals for the establishment of a Journalist Colony by the Foundation established under the Punjab Journalists Housing Foundation Act, 2004 is in the .Public interest and for a public purpose.
The requisite processes in this behalf have been duly initiated and instituted by the respondents.
Consequently all the constitutional petitions being without any merit are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.