Through the instant writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has called into question the legality and validity of notifications No.LAC/616-2014 dated 18.11.2014, No.SR/606, dated 09.02.2015 and No.SR/2252, dated 04.05.2015 issued under sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 respectively.
2. Briefly facts of the case as discernable from the contents of this petition are that the petitioner is owner of land measuring 116 kanals and 07 marlas situated in Mouza Manga Ottar Tehsil Raiwind, District Lahore falling in khewat Nos.124 and 128 khatooni Nos.223 and 227 according to record of rights for the year 2011-2012. Out of the said land, vide notifications dated 18.11.2014, 09.02.2015 and 04.05.2015, land measuring 20 kanals, 06 marlas and 170 Sq.Ft. Was acquired by the Punjab Government Population Welfare Department, Lahore, for public purpose namely "Establishment of Provincial Warehouse Punjab". The petitioner filed his objections vide applications dated 10.03.2015 and 12.09.2015 before respondent No.3 but he did not receive any response. Hence this writ petition.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that adjacent to the land of the petitioner sufficient government land is available, therefore, the respondent should acquire the same land instead of land of the petitioner. He further states that the acquisition proceedings are violative of fundamental rights of holding property as enshrined in Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. He further states that his land being agriculture should not be acquired. On the other hand learned Additional Advocate General contends that the acquisition proceedings have been carried out in accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He further states that the land in question is required for public purpose. He further states that the law does not differentiate between agriculture and non-agriculture land when the same is required for public purpose. He further states that objection regarding availability of government land in the area is no ground for the acquisition of proposed land.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The land of the petitioner has been acquired in accordance with law for the purpose namely "Establishment of Provincial Warehouse Punjab", by the Government of Punjab, Population Welfare Department, Lahore. After observing all legal formalities respondent No.3/Land Acquisition Collector, Lahore, has announced the award under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 10.11.2015. The petitioner is estopped to file the instant writ petition as he availed adequate remedy in the shape of filing objections under section 5 (a) of the Act ibid, which was duly discussed during inquiry conducted by respondent No.3/Land Acquisition Collector, Lahore and subsequently approved by respondent No.4/Commissioner Lahore Division vide letter No.SR/1936, dated 14.04.2015. The award has been announced after considering the claim relating to the land of the petitioner and if the compensation awarded is not acceptable to him, he has a right to file a reference under section 18 of the Act ibid.
6. The petitioner has challenged the vires of the notifications of sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is fully answered in a suo motu case No.13 of 2007 reported in PLD 2009 SC 217 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under :- "The Act provides a systematic scheme for taking measurements of the property, assessment of its value and payment of compensation to the person interested, besides remedy for adjudication of rights of aggrieved persons in accordance with well-known norms of administration of justice. In the case involving any dispute of measurement of property or determination of its market value, the Act provides a remedy through a reference by the Collector to the Civil Court for settlement of these disputes where parties have the opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their stance.
Similarly, disputed factual questions regarding non-fulfillment of conditions precedent for issuance of notification under the Act and the question as to whether acquisition is for public purpose or not, can be determined by the Civil Court. In the instant case, prima facie laying of Housing Scheme for the utility/use of public-atlarge, as compared to some individuals, is a public purpose within the meaning of section 4 of the said Act which was published in official gazette and copies thereof were affixed at conspicuous places at the land under acquisition, thus, the requirements of law were sufficiently met."
The other contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that instead of acquiring land of the petitioner, the respondent should acquire the adjacent land of the government, which is lying vacant. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the availability of land owned by the government is no ground to question the acquisition of the proposed land. The acquiring agency has to see the suitability of the land for the purpose of proposed scheme.
7. In this case notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has been issued as well, which provision is reproduced herein below:- "6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose.--(1)............
(2) ............
(3) The said declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed 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 herein after appearing."
According to sub-section (3) of section 6 of the Act ibid, the declaration has got the presumption of conclusive evidence of the fact that the land was acquired for the public purpose. Reference may be made to case titled Muhammad Ashiq and another vs. Water and Manpower Development Authority, Lahore through Chairman, WAPDA House and another reported in PLD 2008 SC 335. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced herein below:- "8. We have found from the above noted para that the land was being acquired by the Government at the public expenses. Secondly, the land was being required for public purpose, namely, for the construction of WAPDA offices and official residential colony. This aim and purpose was again reiterated and declaration to that effect was also got published by the Provincial Government under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. According to sub-section (3) of section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the said declaration has got the presumption of conclusive evidence of the fact that the land was acquired for the public purpose. After the publication of this declaration, the presumption was to be rebutted by the present petitioners through sound material and cogent evidence. Mere plea that the land of Seth Abid and his relative was not acquired although it was situated within the area surrounded by the area being acquired for the public purpose or the acquisition was based on mala fides. The explicit words of acquisition of land in dispute, by the Government at the public expense in the Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are sufficient to hold that the land was being acquired by the Government for the purpose of construction of WAPDA offices and residential colony. The Government was to decide as to which land was suitable for its purpose. Therefore, no mala fides could be attributed to the Government merely on this plea. The plethora of judgments have found place in the judgments of the learned Division Bench as well as the learned Single Judge in Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, which need not be repeated in this judgment."
As regards the other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land of the petitioner being agriculture should not be acquired and instead government land should be acquired, there is no prohibition in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with regard to acquisition of land for its being culturable or non-culturable.
8. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, permits the acquisition of land in accordance with the provisions thereof. The expression "land" has been defined in section 3 (a) of the Act ibid in the following terms:- "3. Definitions In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context (a) the expression "land" includes benefits to arise out of land, and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth."
The aforesaid definition of expression of "land" used in the Act of 1894 does not distinguish between culturable or non-culturable land, whether situated in the vicinity of town or not. The learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to point out any provision in the statute i.e. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which exempts culturable land from acquisition thereunder.
9. Sequel to the above, this writ petition has no force, hence dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost.