' SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, C.J.--- Through instant constitution petition, petitioner seeks direction against the respondents, restraining them from acquiring hotel built on land measuring 3 Kanals, 1 Marla bearing Khewat No,267, Khatooni No,500, Khasra No,4276/1317 situated in the Revenue Estate of Sihala (KahutaRawalpindi Road), Islamabad.
2. Petitioner, owner in possession of land measuring 3 Kanals, 1 Marla bearing Khewat No,267, Khatooni No,500, Khasra No,4276/1317 situated in the Revenue Estate of Sihala (KahutaRawalpindi Road), Islamabad has constructed hotel on the said land to earn his livelihood and adjacent to the said hotel, a petrol pump is also functional. Respondent No,1 issued a notification for acquiring some land including the land of petitioner, upon which hotel is constructed, for Headquarters of Civil Works Organization, Rawalpindi, however, petrol pump, adjacent to the land of the petitioner is excluded from the acquisition process. Petitioner has alleged that the impugned action of respondents is discriminatory and is liable to be struck down.
3. Respondents filed report and parawise comments. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 have asserted that Civil Works Organization, Rawalpindi had acquired land measuring 145 Kanals, 14 Marlas situated in village Sihala, Tehsil and District Islamabad, including the land of petitioner, for defence purpose and award was announced on 16-10-2002. Physical possession of vacant land, except the land of petitioner, has already been handed over to Civil Works Organization, Rawalpindi and out of 42 affectees, 31 affectees have received their compensation. As per Qabzul Wasool, petitioner can receive compensation amounting to Rs,39,99,522 of his land.
4. Respondent No,3 has alleged that proceedings of acquisition were carried out under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Notification under section 4 of the said Act was issued. Petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of the and Acquisition Collector, had the adequate remedy through filing Reference under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the Collector, Islamabad. Award of the land has already been announced. Petrol pump, adjacent to the land of petitioner, being big commercial entity was excluded from the acquisition due to budgetary constraint.
5. I have heard the learned counsel at length and perused the record.
6. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, Mr. Amjad Iqbal Qureshi, Advocate, was appointed Local Commission to visit the spot and report the present position of Khasra number, in dispute, the location and distance of the petrol pump from the disputed property. He visited the spot and submitted his report. He has annexed a rough site plan, Annexure "B", with his report. His observations are that wall of the hotel is adjacent to that of petrol pump. Constructed area of hotel consists of 20 feet towards East to West linked with RawalpindiKahuta Road and 60.9 feet from North to South. There is cemented courtyard which is used by the hotel management. The hotel is a single storey building and a wall intervenes between the hotel and petrol pump.
7. Rough site plan, Annexure "B", annexed with the report of the Local Commission gives complete picture of the site. The petrol pump and the hotel in dispute are adjacent to each other, both abutting on Rawalpindi-Kahuta Road.
8. Acquisition of site under petrol pump was denotified on the ground of budgetary constraints.
Hotel is located adjacent to the petrol pump. Front of both is abutting on the main Rawalpindi- Kahuta Road. Acquisition of a small strip of land, excluding the site of petrol pump will not serve any public purpose. No justifiable reason had been given or is available on record as to how and for which purpose the site beneath the hotel will be utilized. Discrimination voiced by the petitioner appears to be sound. If the site of petrol pump was needed for public purpose, it could not have been denotified for budgetary constrains. The amount of compensation, worked out for the petrol pump is just a peanut, compared to the awarded amount of the project. The budgetary constraint, seems to be a mere excuse. Petitioner is being meted out with discrimination. Article 25 of the Constitution provides equal treatment to all citizens. Respondents have not kept in view the provision of Article 25, while issuing notification for acquisition of the covered area of hotel.
9. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed. The impugned notification to the extent of covered area of the hotel is set aside. In consequence thereof, proceedings taken thereafter shall be deemed to be of no effect.