' RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, J.---This appeal by leave of the Court has been preferred against the judgment of the High Court dated 24.12.2013, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondents, herein has been accepted.
2. The facts necessary for disposal.Of the instant appeal are that the respondents, herein, filed a writ petition before the High Court, alleging therein, that in the year 1992, the Public Works Department, took the possession of the land belonging to the respondents, herein, comprising survey Nos. 328, 392, 231, 330, 339/300 and 134, measuring 8 kanal, situate at village Maldehi, for the construction of Hotareri Road, however no compensation was paid to the respondents, herein. It was further alleged that the appellants, herein, said to the respondents, herein, that the papers of compensation have been submitted to the Collector. Land Acquisition, but after the lapse of 13/14 years the respondents, herein, got knowledge that the appellants, herein, played fraud with the respondents. It was further alleged that the respondents, herein, also submitted an application before the concerned Minister who directed the appellants, herein, to pay the compensation immediately to the respondents, but the appellants, herein, did not comply with the same. It was further alleged that the conduct of the appellants, herein, with regard to the process of the acquisition of land is mala-fide, just to deprive the respondents, herein, from payment of, the compensation. The learned High Court after necessary proceedings vide impugned judgment dated 24.12.2013, accepted the writ petition filed by the respondents, herein, and directed the appellants to pay the compensation to the respondents. Hence, this appeal by leave of the court.
3. Ch. Muhammad Manzoor, Advocate the learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned judgment is against law and the facts of the case which is not sustainable in the eye of law. He contended that the land was taken for the construction of road and the respondents are the beneficiaries of the same. He submitted that the learned High Court fell in error while not taking into account that the land in question was not taken forcibly rather the respondents themselves given the same voluntarily, for construction of the road. The road was constructed on ' the demand of the respondents and the other people of the area. He added that huge amount has been spent by the. Government for the construction of road and the people of the area are enjoying the fruit of the same. Moreover, the respondents remained silent for a long time and never agitated the matter before any forum, therefore, they cannot be allowed to claim the compensation at this belated stage. The learned High Court has ignored the well settled principle of law that law always favours the person who is vigilant about his right and not indolent. He heavily relied upon the decision of the cabinet dated 25.11.1992, in which it was decided that no compensation will be paid for the construction of the link roads and submitted that this important aspect of the case escaped the notice of the learned High Court while passing the impugned judgment. He added that the respondents badly failed to produce any record regarding the detailed description of effected land and the number of trees. The road was constructed purely for the public welfare, with the sweet-will of the respondents along with the other inhabitants of the area. He lastly argued that more than 80 kanals land was taken for the construction of the said .Road, but except the respondents no one came forward to demand the compensation.
4. On the other hand, Mrs. Bilqees Rasheed Minhas, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondents strongly controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. She submitted that the impugned judgment is perfect and legal which does not warrant any interference by this Court. She further submitted that the right of property is fully protected by the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land and no deviation can be made from it. She added that nothing is on record that the respondents ever given any consent for construction of the road without compensation. She further added that the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the respondents remained silent for a long time is ill- founded as they pursuing the matter continuously at different forums and ultimately they were constrained to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. She submitted that the learned High Court rightly attended the question involved in the case and resolved the same while assigning the strong reasons. She has relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in the early round of litigation titled Nizam Din and others v. Azad Government and others (Civil Appeal No,124 of 2011 decided on 25.02.2013) while submitting that the question involved in the instant appeal has almost been resolved by this Court in the referred judgment.
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record along with the impugned judgment. While attending the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the land was purely taken for public welfare project, i.e,, for construction of the road and the inhabitants of the area voluntarily gave the same for said project, it may be stated that the right of property has been recognized by the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land and no deviation can be made from it. Even otherwise, nothing is on record from where it could be ascertained that the respondents have given their free-will/consent for construction of the road without paying them the compensation. In this way, the respondents cannot be deprived of their right of property without following the procedure provided under law. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel in this regard is misconceived.
6. The next argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the cabinet had already decided on 25.11.1992 that no compensation will be paid for the construction of the link roads, but the learned High Court failed to appreciate this aspect of the case, is also not supported by law. It may be observed here that the cabinet decision cannot be given the preference over the constitutional provisions as the law does not warrant to take away the fundamental rights of the people enshrined in the Constitution. It is recognized principle of law that State subject could not be deprived of possession of his property without lawful means, i.e, State subject has not only right to receive compensation but Government is forbidden to acquire or take over possession of property without first satisfying conditions envisages in Fundamental Right No,14 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974. In the early round of litigation while interpreting Fundamental Rights Nos. 13 and 14 of section 4(4) of the Interim Constitution Act, 1974 this Court has observed as under:-- "7. A perusal of the above said provisions of Interim Constitution Act reveals that the fundamental rights of all the citizens of the State have been fully protected and nobody can be deprived of his property save by the authority of law and a law made will be invalid if it infringes the above said Constitutional provisions. It is also guaranteed under the above said provisions that no property shall be compulsorily acquired or taken possession of except by the authority of law. The above referred Constitutional provisions provide that no property of a citizen shall be acquired without payment of compensation."
7. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the respondents remained silent for a long time is also not convincing in nature. It may be stated here that it is not a sufficient ground to deprive a citizen of the State from the compensation of his property. Moreover, this Court in the early round of litigation while relying on the cases reported as Azad Govt. And 2 others v.
Muhammad Arif Khan and 2 others (2004 YLR 1787), Custodian Evacuee Property AJ&K and another v. Fatima Bibi and 15 others (2003 SCR 88), Messrs Dawood Yamaha Limited, Al-Shahab Building Jinnah Road, Quetta v. Government of Baluchistan through Secretary Local Government, Quetta and 3 others PLD 1986 Quetta 148 and Arsala Khan v. Province of Sindh through Secretary, Government Sindh, Karachi and 3 others (PLD 1976 Karachi 848) has already been resolved this question in the following manners:-- "10. It is also the matter of record that after getting or acquiring the land, the payment of compensation to the owners of the land is the obligation of the Authority which has taken/acquired the land and the Constitution gives the payment of compensation to the owners of the land a status of fundamental right. It is the duty of the authority to pay the compensation before taking the possession or soon thereafter within a reasonable time. As we have observed earlier that the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution is paramount duty of the courts being the custodian of the Constitution, therefore, in our view the non-payment of compensation to the land owners is a continuous wrong and in such like cases the doctrine of laches does not apply. Therefore, we can safely hold that the finding of the High Court while dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches was not justified. The proper course for the High Court was to admit the writ petition for regular hearing and dilate upon the points involved in the case after examining the law and facts of the case on merits."
After taking into account the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and the survey of case law we are of the unanimous view that the learned High Court has not committed any illegality while passing the impugned judgment. Resultantly, having no substance, this appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. 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.