' ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.-This judgment shall dispose of this petition as well as the connected Writ Petition No, 16499 of 2005, as common question of law and' facts are involved in both the matters.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved of an order dated 25-6-2004 whereby the respondent-authority has only approved the cash compensation instead of exempting the plot in developed scheme of the Authority, on the ground of non-availability of the plot in Upper Mall Scheme and a policy formulated by the respondent/Lahore Development Authority.
3. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was owner in possession of total land measuring 6 Kanals 61 Sq. Feet purchased by her in Mauza Mianmir, Lahore Cantt, which was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the predecessor of the respondent and award was announced on 12- 5-1975 to utilize for laying housing scheme known" as Upper. Mall Housing Scheme. Although, the case had a long history but to cut the story short the petitioners to get the exemption of the land acquired by the Authority, filed different applications, Constitutional petitions, and Criminal Originals but lastly the petitioners vide letter dated 25-6-2004 were informed that the Authority in its meeting has decided as under:- "Approved as proposed. Cash compensation should be given as per assessment of LAC under provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 due to non-availability of plots in Upper Mall Scheme. As per Lahore Development Authority policy, exemption of plots from one scheme to another is not allowed."
4. In the connected Writ Petition No, 16499/2005 the facts are that the petitioners were owners in possession of the land measuring 5 Kanals 19 Marlas 165 Sq. Feet and 3 Kanals 5 Marlas, 175 Sq.Feet respectively in Mauza Mianmir, Lahore. The said land was acquired for the housing scheme known as Upper Mall Housing Scheme, Lahore. The respondents prepared the files of the petitioners and file UPS No,346 No,366 was accorded to the petitioner respectively. ,
5. The petitioners in the connected Writ Petition No, 16499 of 2005 are also aggrieved of an order dated 29-1-2005 whereby the respondent-authority has only approved the cash compensation instead of exempting the plot in developed scheme of the Authority, on the ground of non availability of the plot in Upper Mall Scheme and a Policy formulated by the respondent/ Lahore Development Authority.
6. The petitioners being not satisfied, questions the aforesaid decision of the authority by way of instant Constitutional petitions. In response of the notice, the respondent-authority filed report and parawise comments wherein the ownership/ title of the petitioners and the acquisition of land has not been denied but in the last, the aforesaid decision of the Authority meeting has been referred to deprive the petitioners from their valuable right of exemption of land in any other scheme. The respondent- authority because of its record, could not deny the exemption of land as many other persons of different schemes and one of them is related to Upper Mall Scheme, Lahore namely Mian Atta Ullah who was accommodated by the Authority while placing their case in the Authority meetings.
7. During the proceedings, on the pointation of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the respondent-authority has accommodated the other claimants of the Upper Mall Scheme in other different schemes, the Director land Development II, Lahore Development Authority was summoned who appeared in the Court on 1-4-2009 and admitted after consulting the record that in pursuance of the respondent- authority's decision the alternate plots in the Lahore Development Authority scheme were given as compensation to the other claimants of the upper Mall Scheme.
The learned counsel for the respondent Lahore Development Authority sought some time to seek the instructions but on the next date elected to argue the case on merits.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the land of the petitioners was acquired in the year 1975 but till today neither the plots were exempted in any other scheme nor cash compensation at the present market rate was given to the petitioners whereas the authority has accommodated the other claimants of the same scheme in different other developed schemes of the Authority, therefore, a discriminatory treatment is being meted out with the petitioners. The learned counsel also referred few instances of discrimination from the record of the respondent Authority.
9. Conversely, the learned Legal Advisor of the respondent-authority could not deny the validity of the petitioners entitlement but reiterated the grounds taken in the reply and submitted that as per the policy decision of the authority, the exemption of plots from one scheme to another is not allowed.
10. Heard. Record perused.
11. Undeniably, as revealed from the record, that the land of the petitioners was acquired in the year 1975 and an award to this effect was announced on 12-5-1975; the exemption policy was formulated by late Lahore Improvement Trust whereby the owners of the land were entitled to exempted plots equivalent to 2/3rd of their original holding, the petitioners filed different applications to the respondent- authority, who is successor of Lahore Improvement Trust to obtain the exempted plot in the same scheme i.e, Upper Mall Scheme, Lahore, finally the case of the petitioners was placed in the Authority meeting of Lahore Development Authority dated 24-6-2004, wherein it was decided to pay the cash compensation to the petitioner as per assessment of the LAC under the provisions of the Acquisition Act and refused to grant the exempted plot on the ground of non-availability of the plots in Upper Mall Scheme and also refused to accommodate the petitioners in any other scheme referring a policy formulated by the Authority. l2, On the other hand, the respondent- authority allotted alternate plots in the identical mattes during this period, the instances are as follows :-- ' In a meeting held on 16-12-2006 the authority approved a location of alternate plot to one Mst.
Rashidan Begum and alternate plot as per entitlement of plot No,110 Block J, Gulberg III Lahore preferably in Gulberg Scheme after removing encroachments or in any other Lahore Development Authority Housing Scheme.
13, Very interestingly in the same meeting, the authority referred a decision dated 24-6-2004 under which a policy was formulated by the authority not to exempt the developed plot in future of the land acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in any other scheme, the same is reproduced:- ' PRESENT POLICY: ' Meanwhile, the authority vide its decision dated 24-6-2004 has decided to review the exemption policy and has imposed ban for the allocation of plots in such housing schemes including Gulberg-III Housing Scheme wherein land has been acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the following words:- C "The Authority has approved revision of exemption policy in the schemes acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and allowed payment of cash compensation only assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Lahore Development Authority under the law in his award. No developed plot shall be allowed in future in old scheme; where land was acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894."
"Allotment of plot cannot be made, since no plot is available in this scheme. However, cash compensation can be given, if the title is genuine, as per LAC award and relevant provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. As per Lahore Development Authority Policy, exemption of plot from one Scheme to another scheme is not allowed."
LDA Authority meeting dated 31-10-2006 ' The claim of the one Sardar Ahmad Khan was approved by the authority as under:- ' The Authority approved proposal to review its decision dated 24-6-2004 (Lahore Development Authority Policy) to the extent of this case and the allocate some alternate plots, so that the claim may be adjusted in Gulberg or any other Housing Scheme:- ' One Mian Ata Ullah, who was also owner in possession of land measuring 14 'Kanal in Mauza Mianmir was acquired by the Lahore Development Authority and against his 14 Kanals, he was granted exempted land measuring I6 Kanals in Block G-I, M.A. Johar Town Scheme. One of the affectees namely Fazal Mahmood, the petitioners of other Writ Petition No, 16499/2005, filed an application for the grant of an exempted plot to the Chief Minister Punjab whereupon a direction was given to the respondent authority to finalize the case in the light of the decision given in the matter of Mian Ata Ullah on 1-8-2003 but till today, the said order was not complied with.
14. In the presence of the above referred admitted facts, now the question arises as to whether the petitioners are also entitled to get the exempted plot in the same scheme i.e, Upper Mall Scheme or any other developed scheme of the authority in view of the instances quoted above whereby the other affectees in the similar position, were accommodated.
15. On the point of discrimination, it can safely be said, that the petitioners are entitled to get the exempted plot in terms of the present case of Mian Ata Ullah. Reliance is placed on Mst. Sardar Begum through General Attorney v. Housing and Physical Planning Department, Government of the Punjab through Secretary, and 2 others (2009 CLC 95), Shafqat Ullah and 2 others v. Land Acquisition Collector (D.C.), Haripur and 2 others (2006 CLC 1555), Major (Retd.) Barkat Ali and others v. Qaim Din and others (2006 SCMR 562), Asdullah Mangi and others v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and others (2005 SCMR 445) and Mian Tariq Javed v. Province of Punjab, Through Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, Lahore and 2 others 2008 SCMR 598.
16. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 no doubt permits the authority to acquire the land compulsorily but according to its preamble ensure that adequate compensation is to be paid to the landowner.
While dealing with the identical case, it was observed in PLD 1970 Lahore 321 which is as under:- "....The Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894) as is clear from its title and clearer still from the preamble, is a-law for the acquisition of land needed for public purpose and for Companies and for determining the amount of compensation to be paid on account of such acquisition. The raison d'etre of this piece of legislation is, therefore, two-fold: firstly, to fulfil the needs of Govt. And Companies for land required by them for their projects, and secondly, to determine and pay compensation to those private persons or bodies whose land is so acquired. The exercise of the power of acquisition has been limited to public purposes. The principles laid down for the determination of compensation, as clarified by judicial pronouncements made from time to time, reflect the anxiety of the law-giver to compensate those who have been deprived of property, adequately enough in the sense that they are to be given gold for gold and not copper for gold. In other words, the compensation has to be adequate compensation. It is with this end in view that the association of the persons interested in the property, with the process of determination of its market value by the Collector is a highlight of this statute. A bare reading of the Act leaves one with the strong impression that one of the main intentions of the Legislature was to ensure the protection of the rights of the persons whose property was being acquired."
17. Presently, the respondent authority is not ready to accommodate the petitioners by granting exempted plot in the other developed scheme or compensation at the market price on the ground of so-called policy but the petitioners in view of the precedents set by Authority in other cases and the law laid down in different esteemed judgments, are entitled to get exempted plots in any other developed scheme or compensation at the present market rate.
18. In this case, the Authority is admitting all the claims of the petitioners but is refusing to grant the exempted plot on certain technicalities or hurdles. The petitioners in any case after more than three decades cannot be asked to receive the compensation as suggested by the respondent- authority and cannot be deprived from their valuable rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The Authority i.e, Lahore Developed Authority, who is autonomous in its formation and to some degree at liberty to run its domestic affair without the intervention of the other Government departments, so such type of the autonomous authorities are expected to safeguard and protect the rights of the people and particularly, who are genuinely entitled to be treated strictly in accordance with law.
19. For the foregoing reasons, both these petitions are allowed. The respondent Lahore Development Authority is directed to accommodate the petitioners in the same scheme namely Upper Mall or any other developed scheme in the city in the terms of the quoted case Mian Ata Ullah (UPM No, 78), within four months from today. In case the Authority decided to pay cash compensation of the land, that would be equivalent to the market price of the properties located in the Upper Mall Scheme. No order as to cost.