IQBAL HAMEED-UR-RAHMAN, J. --- This order shall dispose of W.P. Nos. 4506, W.P. No. 7214 and W.P.
No. 11470 of 2010, which have arisen out of the same order.
2. Through these writ petitions, the petitioners pray that the impugned order of revival dated 1.3.2010 published in the Gazette on 4.3.2010 (Annexure-H) issued by respondent No. 4 may be set aside as having been issued mala fide against the fundamental rights of the petitioners and without lawful authority.
2. Brief facts as stated by the petitioners in these writ petitions are that the petitioners in all these petitions are owners of different portions of land situated in the revenue estate of village Qanungoi Baddo Muraday and Pir Kot Tehsil and District Sheikhupura. Respondent No. 2, vide notification dated 1.11.2006, identified the requirement of land measuring 100 acres. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 1.2.2007 for acquisition of 117 acres, 2 Kanals & 17 Marlas instead of 100 acres. The land of the petitioners was included in the aforesaid area. Thereafter, the acquisition notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 1.2.2007 was cancelled/withdrawn vide notification dated 8.2.2010 published in the Gazette on 12.2.2010. Subsequently, respondent No. 4 issued a notification dated 1.3.2010 published in the Punjab Gazette on 4.3.2010, whereby the earlier notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 1.2.2007 was revived. Hence these writ petitions.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that after cancellation and withdrawal of c.L.R. notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; dated 1.2.2007, there is no provision in the. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the revival of the previous notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as such, respondent No. 4 has no lawful authority to issue the revival of a de- notified/cancelled/withdrawn notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the same is liable to be set aside and in this respect, reliance is placed upon Tauqir Ahmad Khan and 6 others v. Government of Pakistan through the Secretary, Works, Central Secretariat, Islamabad and 6 others (1994 MLD 186), Syed Mahboob Alam Shah and others v. Deputy Commissioner and others (1989 CLC 1801) and Province of Punjab and 2 others v. Muhammad Haziq and 3 others (1986 CLC 530). It is further contended that the impugned order dated 1.3.2010 published in the Gazette on 4.3.2010 is in sheer violation of Articles 4, 23 and 24 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and as such, the same is against the law.
4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate-General, white supporting the impugned order of revival, has stated that the area was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and therefore, any agreement executed by the petitioners on 31.7.2007 was illegal and that as the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued for the land measuring 117 acres, 2 kanals and 17 marlas, revival of further acquisition proceedings was in accordance with law.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Advocate- General and have also perused the impugned order.
6. In all these writ petitions, it is an admitted position that notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 1.2.2007 had been issued for the acquisition of land measuring 117 acres, 2 kanals and 17 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Qanungoi Baddo Muraday and Pir Kot Tehsil and District Sheikhupura. It is also an admitted position that subsequently, respondent No. 4, District Officer (Revenue) Sheikhupura, cancelled/withdrew the acquisition notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated. 1.2.2007 vide notification dated 8.2.2010 published in the Gazette on 12.2.2010. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 issued a subsequent notification dated 1.3.2010 published in the Gazette on 4.3.2010, whereby the earlier notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 1.2.2007 was revived and the said revival of the previous notification, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been challenged through these writ petitions. In the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, there is no provision provided for the revival of any previous notification, which had been duly withdrawn/cancelled through official notification published in the Gazette. It is the prerogative of the Government to acquire the said land in accordance with law but the same should have been done by adopting a fresh procedure provided in the law i.e. Through a fresh notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and I am fortified in this view by the above cited authorities relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners- i.e. Tauqir Ahmad Khan and 6 others v. Government of Pakistan through the Secretary, Works, Central Secretariat, Islamabad and 6 others (1994 MLD 186), Syed Mahboob Alam Shah land others v. Deputy Commissioner and others (1989 CLC 1801) and Province of Punjab and 2 others v. Muhammad Haziq and 3 others (1986 CLC 530), wherein it has been held that "the Government could not have done so under old notification because once Government withdrew from acquisition of land all previous notifications stood automatically cancelled.
Although Government was entitled to reconsider its previous decision and restart acquisition proceedings, yet it had to start fresh proceedings and state purpose for which land was to be acquired and a fresh notification under S. 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was necessary and a fresh award was to be given". The logic behind the same is that after the withdrawal/cancellation of the earlier notification, subsequent sales of the land may have been conducted by the owners and there would be new claimants, as such, the revival of the previous notification would create complications and the law has not provided a revival of previous notification duly cancelled in accordance with law to be revived.
7. In view of the above perspective and relying upon Tauqir Ahmed Khan and 6 others v.
Government of Pakistan through the Secretary, Works, Central Secretariat, Islamabad and 6 others (1994 MLD 186), Syed Mahboob Alam Shah and others v. Deputy Commissioner and others (1989 CLC 1801) and Province of Punjab and 2 others v. Muhammad Haziq and 3 others (1986 CLC 530), these writ petitions are accepted and the impugned order of revival dated 1.3.2010. Published in the Gazette on 4.3.2010 (Annexure-H) issued by respondent No. 4 is held to be issued without lawful authority and is declared to be null and void and the same is set aside.