' ATIR MAHMOOD, J.--- Through this petition, the petitioners have impugned the notification dated 23-11-2009 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the revenue authorities to acquire the land of the petitioners measuring 27 kanals-8 marlas, bearing khasra numbers 1638/2, 1639, 3765/1645, 1651/2, 1656/2, 1657 situated in Tehsil Cantt. For "Construction of Lahore Ring Road (Package-9) Construction of Interchange at Harbanspura Canal Crossing (Horticulture and Service Area)."
2. Brief facts of the case are that earlier, a notification dated 17-11-2006 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) was issued for acquisition of the land which is subject-matter of this petition and some other land. Thereafter, provisions of sections 17(4) and 17(6) of the Act were invoked vide notification dated 18-6-2008 declaring urgency wherein major portion of land mentioned in notification dated 17-11-2006, including the property in dispute, was omitted and the property mentioned in notification dated 18-6-2008 was taken possession of and the Harbanspura Interchange was constructed. The award of the land acquired was also announced on 4-11-2008, however, petitions regarding quantum of compensation are pending decision before the Land Acquisition Collector-I (Ring Road) Lake Road, Lahore. The possession of the disputed property remained intact with the petitioners throughout the aforesaid process. Afterwards, on 23-11-2009, a fresh notification under section 4 of the Act was issued to acquire the land of the petitioners which is under challenge in this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the disputed property is owned by the petitioners; that a major portion of the property is already constructed which includes nine shops, one house and a factory; that the shops have been rented out to different persons; that the property in dispute forms part of notification dated 17-11-2006; that since the disputed property was not required by the respondents, it was deliberately omitted in notification dated 18-6-2008; that construction of Harbanspura Interchange stands completed and construction material and debris etc. Have also been cleared from the spot; that acquisition of land of the petitioners for the said interchange has become old and past transaction and the respondents are now estopped from issuing the fresh notification intending to acquire land of the petitioners again; that the purpose of construction of Harbanspura Interchange given in the impugned notification is partly false as it already stands completed and is functional at present; that the property in dispute is not required for the said Interchange; that the impugned notification is violative of Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 which guarantee a citizen to acquire, hold and dispose of his property. Learned counsel avers that the impugned notification is against the law, therefore, this writ petition be allowed and the impugned notification dated 23-11-2009 be set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that a number of Interchanges at different locations of Ring Road Project have been constructed; that the Harbanspura Interchange Project is undergoing progress for which land was acquired and the owners of the land have also received compensation through award; that at a later stage, it was noticed that a service area was lacking for which a patch of land, including State land as well as the land of the petitioners, was identified to cater the future requirements of the area, therefore, the same is being lawfully acquired by the respondents vide notification dated 23-11-2009 in public interest; that the project is for the betterment of the public and the area; that the petitioners have already received compensation of the land in earlier acquisition proceedings, as such, they have no locus standi to file this writ petition which is not even maintainable; that the petitioners at the best can ask for a fair compensation which matter is already pending adjudication before the competent authority.
Learned counsel for the respondents prays that this writ petition has no force, it be dismissed.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with their able assistance.
6. The land of the petitioners and others was acquired by the government for construction of Harbanspura Interchange vide notification 17-11-2006 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Thereafter, urgency was declared vide notification dated 18-6-2008 invoking under sections 17(4) and 17(6) of the Act. However, in this notification, the land of the petitioners was not included. The award was made vide notification dated 4-11-2008 and the compensation was paid to all those whose land was acquired vide notification dated 17-11-2006 which is not denied by the petitioners. Afterwards, fresh notification dated 23-11-2009 under section 4 of the Act was issued intending to acquire the land of the petitioners, which is impugned in this writ petition by the petitioners mainly on the grounds that the construction of Harbanspura Interchange stands completed which at present is functional; that their land is being acquired for horticulture purposes only and not for construction of Harbanspura Interchange and that the fresh notification could not have been issued by the respondents after completion of the work pursuant to earlier notification dated 17-11-2006.
7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that their land is being acquired for horticulture purpose only has no force as the impugned notification dated 23-11-2009, issued under section 4 of the Act provides that the land is being acquired for the "Lahore Ring Road (Package-9)
Construction of Interchange at Harbanspura Canal Crossing (Horticulture and Service Area)" which means that the land is not merely required for horticulture but also for Service Area which is a public requirement and there can be put no embargo if the land is being acquired for a public purpose which is prima facie clear from the record.
8. The other contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that a fresh notification could not have been issued after completion of the work pursuant to earlier notification dated 17-11-2006 which does not hold water as it is well-settled now that the competent authority may acquire the land in public interest as and when needed. The said contention has been well replied by the respondents that after completion of the Interchange in question, a need to construct service area arose therefore, the fresh notification was issued. In the circumstances, the respondents were well within the law and presumption of correctness is attached to their act, until and unless there is some malice on their part which could not be established by the petitioners. Mere raising allegation of malice or mala fide is nothing until and unless it is proved through cogent evidence. ##TE# In this regard, I am guided by the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled "Sub. (Retd.) Muhammad Ashraf v. District Collector Jhelum and others PLD 2002 SC 706)" wherein it has been held that "It is well-settled by now that "mere assertion cannot take place of prof so as to tilt balance in favour of mala fides."
9. Another aspect of the matter is that the petitioners have remedy available to them before the Collector under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act in shape of raising objections. Subsections
(1) and 2 of section 5-A of the Act are reproduced below:- [5-A. Hearing of objections.--- (1) Any person interested in any land which has been not under section 5 as being needed for a public purpose or for a Company may, within thirty days after the issue of the notification, object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be.
(2) Every objection under subsection (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, submit the case for the decision of the Commissioner, together with the record of the proceedings held by him and a report containing his recommendations on the objections. The decision of the Commissioner on the objections shall be final."
' The aforementioned remedy is a proper and equally efficacious remedy provided by the Act but the same has not been availed by the petitioners.
10. As far as contention of learned counsel for the petitioners regarding violation of Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is concerned, it has been held in the judgment cited at (PLD 2002 SC 706) supra that "where a person is deprived of his property under the authority of law and according to the provisions of law, he has no ground for complaint under the Constitution and the only embargo which has been imposed under Article 24 of the Constitution is that no private property can be acquisitioned save in accordance with law and too for a public purpose and on payment of compensation."The property of the petitioners has been acquired in accordance with law. They have also not denied receipt of compensation under award dated 4-11-2008. Further, the petitions for enhancement of compensation are also pending decision before the Collector. In the circumstances, I find no illegality committed by the respondents while issuing impugned notification dated 23-11-2009 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
11. In view of the aforementioned reason, this writ petition has no merit, which is accordingly dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.