MIAN FASIH-UL-MULK, J.--- We propose to dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.107 of 2004 and 129 of 2007 by this single judgment as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.
2. Briefly stated facts of the cases are that landed property of petitioners was acquired for the construction of Tarbela Dam Project. In order to compensate the affectees Government laid policy of allotment of alternate land to them in the Provinces of Punjab and Sindh. The minimum area to be offered was not be less than 12-1/2 acres in Colony area and 16 to 34 acres of irrigated land in Barrage areas. Petitioners being affectees had met the criteria laid down for issuance of eligibility certificates to them and many directives in this behalf were issued for implementation of policy of Government regarding allotment of alternate land to affectees. All the petitioners were found eligible and issued eligibility certificates, which were handed over to Secretary WAPDA Allotment Committee. Only 2400 persons were allotted land in Punjab whereas petitioners were totally discriminated and ignored for no reason. The Commission through the authorities of Ghazi Barotha Hydro Power Project recommended that each affectee claimant instead of allotment of alternate land be paid Rs,1,07,500. No concrete steps were taken to redress grievances of petitioners, hence the instant writ petitions.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that petitioners being acknowledged affectees of Tarbela Dam Project and held eligible to allotment of alternate land are entitled to an area of land according to the criteria laid down in the policy but have been discriminated for no good reason.
They further contended that despite passage of sufficient long time no land has been allotted to petitioners without any lawful justification. Learned counsel concluded that on acceptance of writ petitions respondents may be directed to follow the Government Policy and directive of Chief Executive of Pakistan in its letter and spirit.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for WAPDA refuted the contentions of learned counsel for petitioners and contended that notification for acquisition of land for Tarbela Dam Project was issued as back as in 1966/67 and compensation for acquired land has been paid to the affectees.
Petitioners since then went into slumber and woke up in the year 2004 and 2007 by filing these writ petitions which are hit by the principle of laches. It was argued that persons who made claims at proper time were allotted lands whereas the petitioners never bothered to approach or apply for the same. It was concluded that no discrimination was made and, therefore, prayed for dismissal of writ petitions.
5. It is to be noted that respondents Nos.3 to 6 had already been proceeded ex parte. Learned Deputy Attorney General representing respondent No,1 and Deputy Advocate-General for respondent No,2 supported the policy of Government and case of petitioners.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record annexed with the writ petitions with their able assistance.
7. Allegedly petitioners are affectees as their landed property had been acquired for the construction of Tarbela Dam Project. Petitioners were paid compensation of their acquired landed property. The Government of Pakistan in order to compensate the affectees laid down a policy for allotment of alternate land to them in the Provinces of Punjab and Sindh. The minimum area to be offered was not to be less than 12-1/2 acres in Colony area and 16 to 34 acres of irrigated land in Barrage areas. For implementation of said-policy WAPDA Resettlement Department had made requisition of fifty thousands acre from Punjab and fifty thousands acres of land from Sindh. The Province of Punjab allocated thirty thousand acres of land from old colonies but Province of Sindh allocated only ten thousand six hundred and eighty six acres of land and withheld the remaining area. The allottees of land in Sindh were also not given physical possession. Petitioners being affectees had met the criteria laid down for issuance of eligibility certificates to them and many directives in this behalf were issued for implementation of policy of Government regarding allotment of alternate land to affectees. Later on a meeting was held on 3-5-1967 under the Chairmanship of the then President of Pakistan and the policy earlier laid down for the purpose was confirmed. The detailed procedure elaborated in the said directives included functions of WAPDA Resettlement Department, which was required to select area for allotment. After selection of area the department was to obtain NOC from the concerned Deputy Commissioner. All the petitioners were found eligible and issued eligibility certificates, which were handed over to Secretary WAPDA Allotment Committee. Only 2400 persons were allotted land in Punjab whereas petitioners were totally discriminated and ignored for no reason. In November, 1998 a Commission was appointed to assess the claims of affectees afresh. The affectees were directed to deposit their eligibility certificates duly verified by Land Acquisition Collector to Secretary WAPDA Allotment Committee. The Secretary was to transmit certificates to the said Commission. The certificates of petitioners are still lying with Secretary WAPDA Allotment Committee. The Commission accepted claims of 1744 persons whereas returned claims of four to five thousand persons.
8. In the case of Khuda Bux Chandio v. Sattar and others (1999 MLD 3199), it has been held that "every statutory body or public functionary is supposed to function in good faith, honestly and within the precincts of its powers, so that the person concerned should be treated in accordance with law as guaranteed by Article 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. A departure from this grand norm will render their actions destitute of validity and will resultantly strip off the cloak of protection provided to it under the law". It has been also held time and again by the superior courts that the statutory bodies and statutory corporations are required to act strictly within the defined spheres of their authority under the law. In case of transgression of powers, abuse of powers or colourful exercise of powers by such functionaries, the exercise was open to correction in constitutional jurisdiction of superior judiciary viz judicial review. Keeping these principles in view we have no hesitation to hold that the commission through the authorities of Ghazi Barotha Hydro Power Project could not legally recommend that each affectee claimant be paid Rs,1,07,500 instead of allotment of alternate land, as the commission could not sit on the decision arrived at a meeting Chaired by no less a person than President of the country through a valid policy.
9. A meeting was held on 25-8-2000 under the Chairmanship of Secretary, Ministry of Water and Power, who in the very opening words informed the participants that Chief Executive of Pakistan has approved 21300 acres of land for distribution among Tarbela Dam affectees. Out of said area of land 14200 acres was to be provided in Punjab and 7100 acres in Sindh. The Government of N.- W.F.P. Had made commitment to provide 2607 acres of land in D.I. Khan District but no positive step seems to have been taken as yet.
10. The Policy of 1967 reproduced in 1968 still holds the field as the same was never changed rather affirmed and approved in 2000. It does not envisage that some part of amount will be given in lieu of policy. The respondents are bound to allot land to affectees as per policy of 1967 subject to their eligibility as required by the Government.
11. Adverting to the objection with regard to laches, suffice it to say that petitioners had been strenuously pursuing the matter of allotment, question of laches, therefore, would not arise.
12. Consequently, we allow both the writ petitions and direct the respondents to consider allotment of land to the petitioners as per policy of Government subject to their eligibility with no order as to costs.