' SALMAN HAMID, J.--- In the course of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for a declaration that the act of the respondents, diverting the road from previous position to a new position was illegal, null and void and therefore, a declaration was sought that the construction of the road be made on the previous position in the best interest of the people of locality and that the land of the respondent, therefore, be not acquired by the respondents.
2. Milieu of the case is that the respondents had undertaken the tasks of dualization and rehabilitation of Larkana Moen-Jo-Daro road (Package-I and II) 0+000 28+000 up to airport (the Highway) to endow with free flowing/expressway facility to the populace of Larkana and bordering districts. Needed drawings and designs were made and had been approved for construction of the Highway. The Highway was to be constructed on international standards and therefore, the intent thereof had to be per AASHTO (American Association of High Way and Transportation Officials)
Code. When design of the Highway was hardened on the hallmark of AASHTO values, it transpired that there were perilous curves in the Highway and the design alacrity of the Highway up to 90 kilometer and hour to 100 kilometer an hour lacked.
' To meet up the requirement of AASHTO, new designs for Highway were made and got approved.
This resulted in acquiring the land of the petitioner. Thus an area of 0-23 and 0-20 guntas from Survey Nos.337/1 and 337/3, of the petitioner's land (the Land) was acquired as evident from Sindh Government Gazette Notification, published on 24-11-2010 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (the Act). Tht Notification inter alia states that ".... It appears to the Collector Larkana District that the land is likely to be acquired by the National Highway Authority at the public expense for the construction of Warro bypass between KM 21+800 to 23+500 of Dualization and Rehabilitation of Larkana-Moen-Jo-Daro road upto Airport (Package I and II)".
3. Comments on behalf of the respondents were preferred, substance whereof has already been mentioned hereinabove. All through the progress of the charm of the petitioner in the petition, at one time an objection was raised that the acquisition course in acquiring the Land of the petitioner as laid down under. The Act had not been followed. To offset, such allegation, the respondents under cover of a statement dated 13-12-2010 produced above Gazette Notification dated November 24, 2010. This Gazette Notification was not denied or disputed by the petitioner. In fact it was mentioned that objections as required, within the stipulated period of thirty days have been chosen and are pending before the competent court.
4. Watching the case from above viewpoint and the prayers made in the petition, i,e, the Land be not acquired, the question that becomes of the quintessence and which needs reflection is whether the Land (already acquired) is for public purpose? Acquisition of which has been resisted by the petitioner. Provisions of the Act (section 4) provides that before acquiring the land whenever it appears to the provincial government that the land in a locality is to be needed or is likely to be needed for a public purpose a notification to that result is published in the official Gazette. The government has, to persuade itself before issuing notification under Section .4 that the land is required for public purpose. After the notice has been issued anyone who has an interest in the land, which has been included in the notification, may, within thirty days of the issue of the notification raise objections to the acquisition. Such objections shall be decided after giving an opportunity of hearing by the collector of the area and if he (collector) feels necessary, he may send the case for decision of the provincial government. Past the objections, decision follows upon the government's satisfaction after considering any report that land is needed for public purpose. A declaration shall be made to this effect and is published in the official Gazette. It shows that the first notification is under section 4 and the second under section 6 of the Act. Achievement of these notifications has been stated in section 6(3) of the Act. It reads:--- "6(3) The said declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the land is owned for a public purpose or for a Company as the case may be and, after making such declaration, the Provincial Government may acquire the land in manner hereinafter appearing."
5. A bare scrutiny of the above provisions would show that the decision that land is required for public purpose is the subjective decision of the government. At this occasion, perhaps, the provisions of section 3(f) of the Act require a visit. It says, "Public purpose" include the provision of village-sites in districts in which the provincial government shall have declared by notification in the official gazette that it is customary for the government to make such provision. It would be apparent that the definition of public purpose is not meticulous and/or not far-reaching, thus require elucidation i,e, the public purpose is always to be deciphered according to the requirements of a given A acquisition. It cannot be unyielding. Therefore public purpose depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case, as per the need of the communal.
6. It, therefore, follows from the above provision of the Act that once the government determines that the acquisition is for "public purpose" it cannot be challenged but on the ground that it is mala fide or in exploitation of the powers conferred on the authority. Provisions of subsection (3) of section 6 of the Act precludes the courts from ascertaining whether all the ingredients of the avowal as made therein existed apart, from where it appears that in making the declaration there has been a fraud on the power conferred. Looking to the scheme of the Act, it seems that the declaration of the public purpose cannot be challenged in court which is conclusive. Whether a purpose amounts to public purpose, entirely rests in the decision of government and its satisfaction to that effect and it appears that it is not questionable, except on the ground that such was mala fide; was fraud on the statute and was an outcome of colourable exercise of power.
7. Wrapping the above discussion, it has become copiously clear that the Land that has been acquired by the respondents is for public purpose which is in the larger interest of all, and for the most part, in the interest of the people of Larkana and the adjoining districts. It goes without axiom that the concern of an individual cannot be paramount to the interest of general public and therefore, the interest of general public should reign over the interest of an individual. We are therefore of the view, for the most part, keeping in mind the fact that the Land has been acquired for public purpose and that germane Notification under section 4 of the Act has been issued when still the petition was pending to which admittedly objections before now had been preferred by the petitioner, which shall take their own course, this petition has lost its efficacy on this ground. It is also clear from the contents of the petition that on the whole, the petitioner expressed his grievance to the extent of diversion of the Highway from originally envisaged position and therefore it may not be allowed, and that the Land of the petitioner be not acquired. Since the design of the Highway has already been changed for public purpose and their interest to which the petitioner could not point out any mala fide or abuse of process of law on the part of public functionaries and also the fact that the Land of the petitioner has already been acquired to which admittedly, objections have been filed whereby alternate remedy that was available to the petitioner has already been availed of; this petition, according to us, on this score alone has lost its authority.
8. For the above reasons we do not find any merits in this petition which is hereby dismissed, along with all listed/pending applications. There shall, however, be to order as to cost.